JUDGMENT Sujit Singh, J. :- Sh. Rajinder Kumar Gupta has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking judicial review of the order dated 28.8.1997 (copy Annexure P-4) of the Central administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, and on such review for setting aside the said order as also the orders dated 26/27.4.1995 of the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. respondent No. 2 whereby the writ petitioner has been visited with the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and dated 20.10.1995 of the Appellate Authority, i.e. respondent No. 1, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Disciplinary Authority, has been dismissed. 2. First the factual matrix of the case may be noticed. The writ petitioner was employed as an Assistant Audit Officer in the office of Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, i.e. respondent No. 2. In the year 1990 he along with one Harminder Singh also an Assistant Audit Officer and one Bhup Ram Sharma, Sr. Auditor, was detailed on audit duty to Kullu and Keylong. The party of the three after doing the work at Kullu proceeded to Keylong sometime in the second half of July, 1990. The party was supposed to do the audit of the accounts of various offices at Keylong and the job was likely to keep them busy at Keylong for almost the entire month of August, 1990. The writ petitioner left Keylong for his native place in Solan District on 3rd of 4th August, 1990 and reported back to duty at Keyong on 19th August, 1990. A report was made to his Disciplinary Authority, i.e. respondent No. 2, by a member of his party, i.e. Harminder Singh, probably senior to him, on 29th August, 1990 that he had been willfully absent from duty from 4.8,1990 to 18.8.1990. The writ petitioner was called upon to explain his conduct. He submitted that he, on receipt a message from his native place that his wife was seriously sick, had to rush to his native place in emergency. He also stated that the Inspecting Officer heading the audit party, namely Harminder Singh, was not available in station, i.e. at Keylong on 3.8.1990 and 4.8.1990 and so the application could not be submitted to him. He also stated that the Inspecting Officer heading the audit party, namely Harminder Singh, was not available in station, i.e. at Keylong on 3.8.1990 and 4.8.1990 and so the application could not be submitted to him. It was also stated by the writ petitioner that he had written an application and handed over the same together with charge relinquishment report to another member of the audit party, namely Bhup Ram Sharma, Senior Auditor. His explanation did not find favour with respondent No. 2, and, therefore, a memo under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA), Rules for imposition of minor penalty was served on the petitioner. It appears that he denied the imputation made in the memorandum and the respondent No.2 then decided to hold a regular enquiry. Consequently a formal charge -sheet was drawn up and served upon the writ petitioner. He filed reply to the charge-sheet, taking the same stand which he took initially, as summed up herein above. Thereafter one Sh. P. P. Singh, Dy. Accountant General (Inspection) was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The said Inquiry Officer submitted has report on 24.10.1994 holding the writ petitioner guilty of the charge of willful absence from duty from 4.8,1990 to 18.8.1990. The Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the inquiry report supplied its copy to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner made a representation. After considering the representation of the writ petitioner and the inquiry report, the respondent No.2, in his capacity as Disciplinary Authority, imposed the penalty of withholding of one increment, without cumulative effect, vide order dated 26/27th April, 1995. 3. The writ petitioner filed a departmental appeal before the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi, who dismissed the same vide order dated October 20, 1995. He then filed an application, under Section 9 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh a (copy Annexure P-1). In the said application, it was alleged that the inquiry was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA), Rules, inasmuch as neither any of the witnesses cited in the list filed with the charge-sheet had been examined nor had any of the documents mentioned in the list of documents, annexed with the charge-sheet, been proved and the writ petitioner had also not been questioned. 4. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 contested the aforesaid application of the writ petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner, vide order dated 28th August, 1997, copy annexure P-4, holding that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner in the course of the conduct of the inquiry. The learned Tribunal, relying upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, 1995(5) SLR 778 has also held that the scope of judicial review by the Tribunal is very limited. 5. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the Tribunal has not looked into his plea that the inquiry conducted, in the present case is in total violation of the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, as also in violation of the principles of natural justice, because the finding holding the writ petitioner guilty of the charge has been returned without recording any evidence and also without affording any opportunity to the writ petitioner, to explain his position. 6. In reply, the respondents No. 1 and 2 do not deny that the Inquiry officer did not record any evidence in the course of inquiry nor did he question the writ petitioner with respect to the material on which Inquiry Officer has based his findings. However, the respondents relying upon the impugned order (Annexure P-4) of the Central Administrative Tribunal, portions of which have been extensively reproduced in the reply, have alleged that no prejudice has been caused to the writ petitioner on account of non-examination of the witnesses and the non-questioning the petitioner, in accordance with the requirement of Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA), Rules. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (Sh. Kuldip Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sh. Jatinder Thakur, Advocate), as also the Assistant Solicitor General of India (Sh. Sandip Sharma), we are of the view that the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the writ petitioner is guilty of the charge of willful absence is not based on any evidence, leave alone legal evidence. Kuldip Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sh. Jatinder Thakur, Advocate), as also the Assistant Solicitor General of India (Sh. Sandip Sharma), we are of the view that the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the writ petitioner is guilty of the charge of willful absence is not based on any evidence, leave alone legal evidence. From a perusal of the charge-sheet, copy of which is available on the record of the present writ petition as it is annexed to Annexure P-1 (copy of OA filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal), it is clear that the allegation against the writ petitioner was that he left Keylong for his native place without getting the leave sanctioned or even without submitting / handing over the application for leave to any member of the party and that his plea that he had handed over the application to Sh. Bhup Ram, Sharma, Sr. Auditor was false, as said Sh Bhup Ram Sharma, Sr. Auditor had denied, in writing, through an undated letter, that the writ petitioner had given an application for leave to him for the period, in question. The Presenting Officer did not lead any evidence before the Inquiry Officer to prove the allegation that the plea taken by the writ petitioner that he had given an application to Sh. Bhup Ram Sharma, Sr. Auditor, a member of the Audit Party, while leaving Keylong on 3rd August, 1990, was false, though said Sh. Bhup Ram Sharma had been cited as a witness, per list of witnesses, supplied to the writ petitioner along with the charge sheet. Similarly the presenting side did not examine the Incharge of the Audit Party, namely Sh. Harminder Singh who made the report on 29.8.1990 to the respondent No. 2 that the writ petitioner remained willfully absent from duty from 4.8.1990 to 18.8.1990, while on tour at Keylong. Various documents relied upon by the presenting side, a list of which was served upon the writ petitioner alongwith the charge-sheet was also not proved by the presenting side. Besides, the writ petitioner was not questioned, in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA), Rules. 8. From the above stated factual position, it is clear that the Inquiry Officer has returned the finding holding the writ petitioner guilty of the charge without any evidence having been led in support of the charge. Besides, the writ petitioner was not questioned, in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA), Rules. 8. From the above stated factual position, it is clear that the Inquiry Officer has returned the finding holding the writ petitioner guilty of the charge without any evidence having been led in support of the charge. The Inquiry Officer has placed before reliance upon the documents described in the list, annexed to the charge-sheet, without the proof of such documents. The Inquiry Officer rejected the plea taken by the writ petitioner in reply to the charge-sheet that he had to rush to his native place, in emergency, on getting the news of his wife being seriously sick and, therefore, he did not have the time to get the leave sanctioned, before proceeding to his native place, without questioning the writ petitioner with respect to the aforesaid plea. The Inquiry Officer has thus violated not only the provision of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules but also the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as he has relied upon the documents mentioned in the list attached with the charge-sheet without the proper proof of those documents and also without affording the writ petitioner an opportunity (by questioning him) to elaborate his plea that he had to leave the place of his duty in emergency and that before proceeding to his native place he wrote an application for leave and handed it over to Bhup Ram Sharma. 9. The view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of non-examination of the witnesses named in the list filed with the charge-sheet or the proper proof of the documents enumerated in the list of documents also attached with the charge-sheet or on account of non-questioning of the writ petitioner, is erroneous. As already noticed, it was an essential part of the charge of wilful absence from duty, framed against the writ petitioner that his plea that he had given an application to his junior colleague and the member of the audit party, namely Sh. Bhup Ram Sharma, Sr. Auditor, before leaving the station, was false. For providing the alleged falsity of this plea of the writ petitioner, the department proposed to examine said Sh. Bhup Ram Sharma, Sr. Auditor, before leaving the station, was false. For providing the alleged falsity of this plea of the writ petitioner, the department proposed to examine said Sh. Bhup Ram Sharma and to prove the alleged undated writing given by him to respondent No. 2 denying therein that any application was given to him by the writ petitioner before he left Keylong on 3.8.1990. The Inquiry Officer could not have relied upon the alleged writing of Sh. Bhup Ram Sharma, unless Sh. Bhup Ram Sharma was examined before the Inquiry Officer in support of that is stated therein and the writ petitioner had the opportunity to cross examine him. This has definitely caused material prejudice to the writ petitioner. Again the plea of the writ petitioner that he had \o rush to his native place, in emergency, and, therefore, there was no time for him to get the leave sanctioned before leaving the place of duty, has also been rejected by the Inquiry Officer, without questioning the writ petitioner with respect to the said plea and thereby affording him an opportunity to substantiate the same. 10. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the legal proposition, noticed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in its impugned order that the scope of judicial review in judging the correctness or otherwise of the findings of Inquiry Officers, in departmental proceedings, is limited, but under the cover of this proposition the Court cannot shirk their duty of administering justice, even in cases where the findings of Inquiry Officers are based on no evidence or deficient evidence or where the Inquiry Officers have given a complete go-by to the prescribed procedure, particularly those provisions of the procedure, which are based on the principles of natural justice, as in the present case. The courts do have and have been exercising the power of judicial review where the Inquiry Officers in departmental proceedings have returned the findings holding the delinquent guilty, without recording evidence of material witnesses or without following the principles of natural justice. 11. In Hardwari Lal. State of U.P. and others, JT 1999(8) SC 418 the presenting side did not examine two important witnesses one of whom was the complainant. The Inquiry Officer returned the findings that the allegations made in the complaint stood proved. 11. In Hardwari Lal. State of U.P. and others, JT 1999(8) SC 418 the presenting side did not examine two important witnesses one of whom was the complainant. The Inquiry Officer returned the findings that the allegations made in the complaint stood proved. The Honble Supreme Court held that the findings of the Inquiry Officer could not be sustained as the complaint had not been proved on account of non-examination of the complainant and another material witness. 12. Similarly in Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others, JT 1999(8) SC 603, the finding of the Inquiry Officer was set aside on the ground that it was not supported by any evidence on record, inasmuch as no opportunity had been afforded to the delinquent to cross-examine the witnesses on those statement, recorded in the course of preliminary inquiry, reliance had been placed by the Inquiry Officer in the course of regular inquiry. 13. In another case where finding of guilt had been returned against the delinquent on the basis of the entries in the confidential reports. The Honble Supreme Court set aside the finding, holding that the officers, who had recorded the adverse entries in the A.C.Rs. had not been examined before the Inquiry Officer, so as to afford an opportunity to the delinquent to cross-examine them with regard to such adverse entries. Citation is AIR 1970 SC 2086 The State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal. 14. As an upshot of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.8.1997, copy Annexure P-4, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, i.e. respondent No. 3, in OA no. 609-HP of 1997 is set aside and consequently the order of penalty dated 26/27.4.1995 passed by respondent No. 2, thereby ordering the stoppage of one increment of the writ petitioner without cumulative effect, as also the order dated October 20, 1995 passed in appeal by respondent No. 3 thereby dismissing the departmental appeal of the writ petitioner against the aforesaid order of penalty dated 26/27.4.1995, are also set aside. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.