Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Respondent Bhagwan Singh in the original application filed by him under Section 18 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 challenged order dated 22.06.2001 (Anx.A/1) passed by the appellate authority, order dated 26.04.1999 (Anx.A/2) passed by the reviewing authority and order dated 25.08.1998 (Anx.A/3) passed by the disciplinary authority styling the same to be illegal. The Tribunal vide order dated 24.03.2004 set aside the impugned orders mentioned above and held Bhagwan Singh entitled to all consequential benefits. 2. The bare minimum facts that need a mention reveal that Bhagwan Singh was charge-sheeted vide memo dated 012.1997. The allegation against him was that he was careless in his work and failed to maintain the track as per laid down standard resulting in derailment of five coaches of 2307 UP Howarh Jodhpur Express due to excessive slack gauge. 3. During the course of enquiry, Bhagwan Singh requested for supply of the documents for his defence. Whereas some documents were supplied to him, but sketch of the site of derailment, statements of witnesses taken during the MJE, derailment readings of the derailed coaches and the speedograph/readings of the engines were not supplied to him. He was of course supplied with a copy of the letter dated 04.06.1998 along with a copy of the enquiry report and was asked to submit his defence statement. He submitted his defence statement but at the same time pointed out that he was not supplied the documents mentioned above, which prejudiced his defence. The departmental proceedings culminated in the order of imposition of penalty of reduction by two stages below at Rs.7200/-in the time scale of pay for two years with future effect. These orders have since been confirmed by various authorities; that, as mentioned above, were successfully challenged by Bhagwan Singh. 4. Learned Tribunal anulled the impugned orders primarily on the grounds that the relevant documents which had bearing upon the controversy in issue were not supplied to Bhagwan Singh which had prejudiced his case before the Enquiry Officer and further that the order passed by the disciplinary authority was cryptic and not speaking. 5. 4. Learned Tribunal anulled the impugned orders primarily on the grounds that the relevant documents which had bearing upon the controversy in issue were not supplied to Bhagwan Singh which had prejudiced his case before the Enquiry Officer and further that the order passed by the disciplinary authority was cryptic and not speaking. 5. Confronted with the position that the orders under challenge before the Tribunal were set aside on the grounds mentioned above, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that if the orders were set aside on the ground that proper opportunity was not given and thus, there was violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner ought to have been given opportunity to proceed afresh against the respondent-applicant by following proper procedure and then pass orders in accordance with law. There cannot be any exception to the only contention raised by the learned Counsel. 6. While upholding the order of the learned Tribunal, we however give liberty to the petitioner to proceed against the applicant in the original lis, by following proper procedure in the departmental enquiry and in case orders adverse to the applicant are to be passed, then to give reasons by passing a speaking order. 7. With the observations made above, the writ petition is dismissed.