Judgment ( 1. ) THE order passed in this petition shall also Govern the disposal of connected petition W. P. No. 2994/2001 (M. D. Jena v. Union of India and Ors. ). ( 2. ) PETITIONER-K. P. Singh at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of Constable in CISF and was posted at Ashdiek area, Vindhya Nagar and petitioner-M. D. Jena of W. P. No. 2994/2001 was also serving on the post of Constable in the said area. ( 3. ) THE charges were framed against these two petitioners that during the duty hours they caught one tractor trolley full of fire wood but instead of taking action against the tractor owner under the law they allowed him to go and took Rs. 400/- from Pannalal Vishwakarma. Both the petitioners refuted the charges and thereafter departmental enquiry was initiated against them. One Shri R. P. Sherawat was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the departmental enquiry. After holding the departmental enquiry the charges were found to be proved as a result of which both the petitioners were dismissed from the service vide order dated 12/1/2000 passed by Dy. Inspector General (Respondent No. 3 ). ( 4. ) BOTH the petitioners preferred departmental appeal to respondent No. 2 but the same has also been rejected. Hence this petition. ( 5. ) IT has been contended by Shri Tiwari, learned senior counsel, that the departmental enquiry conducted by the department, is wholly unwarranted under the law for the simple reason that the enquiry officer acted like a prosecutor and not only cross-examined the delinquent and the witnesses but also showed a conduct of bias. It has been further contended that the allegations is that the impugned tractor and trolley was released by them has not at all been proved as well as this fact is also not proved that Rs. 400/-were taken from Pannalal Vishwakarma. By inviting my attention to enquriy papers, it has been contended that neither the tractor owner was examined nor the driver of the tractor was examined. Jeep driver in which the petitioners were petrolling has not stated anything accusing the petitioners. 400/-were taken from Pannalal Vishwakarma. By inviting my attention to enquriy papers, it has been contended that neither the tractor owner was examined nor the driver of the tractor was examined. Jeep driver in which the petitioners were petrolling has not stated anything accusing the petitioners. It has also been putforth by learned senior counsel that Pannalal was not identified the petitioners and the identification of the petitioners is not in accordance with law, since all of a sudden, the petitioners were brought before Pannalal, at that juncture, at the instance of Inspector B. S. Sarangi the petitioners were identified. It has been further contended by learned senior counsel that in all fairness the department ought to have mixed certain similar persons with the petitioners if the identification parade has been held. Since this has not been done, the petitioners have snatched Rs. 400/- from said Pannalal, is not proved. ( 6. ) ON going through the record, it is gathered that Shri R. P. Sherawat was appointed as Enquiry Officer. No presenting officer was appointed by the department in order to prosecute the case on behalf of the department. On going through the deposition sheet of the departmental witnesses, it is gathered that the enquiry officer itself played and acted the roll of presenting officer and the several questions were put to ail the departmental witnesses by him, after they were cross-examined by the delinquents. The questions were put to each departmental witness and those questions were direct and leading questions. In that regard the deposition sheet of departmental witnesses namely Prakash Pande Annexure-P/4, Pannalal Vishwakarma Annexure-P/5, Daarshan Chand, Bodhan Das, Inspector B. S. Sarangi apd M. C. Chaturvedi may be seen. These witnesses are the departmental witnesses. Apart from this, after putting direct and leading questions to all these witnesses, no opportunity of further cross-examination was provided to the delinquents. Not only this, the important fact which cannot be marginalised and blinked away is that when the delinquents gave their statements, cross-examination in detail was done by the Enquiry Officer as it is clear from the statements of the delinquents. ( 7. Not only this, the important fact which cannot be marginalised and blinked away is that when the delinquents gave their statements, cross-examination in detail was done by the Enquiry Officer as it is clear from the statements of the delinquents. ( 7. ) ON going through the statement of departmental witness B. S. Sarangi, Inspector, it is gathered that after the petitioners cross-examined him, the enquiry officer further cross-examined this officer and directly put certain questions in order to put the answer in his mouth and thereafter in cross-examination by the enquiry officer, the copies of the documents were produced during the cross-examination. These documents were never relied in the charge sheet and no copy thereof were ever given to the delinquents. The enquiry report as well as the punishment order is based on these documents. ( 8. ) IN this view of the matter, I am of the view that the enquiry so conducted is wholly unwarranted under the law and is against the principles of natural justice, as such, it cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is hereby quashed. Since the departmental enquiry has been quashed, therefore, it is held that the charges are also not proved. ( 9. ) IN the result, both the petitions are allowed. The order of dismissal from the services of the petitioners dated 12/1/2000 passed by respondent No. 3 and affirmed by respondent No. 2 in appeal is hereby quashed and both the petitioners are hereby directed to be reinstated in the service with 25% back wages. However, looking to the facts and circumstances, the parties are hereby directed to bear their own costs.