Judgment [Per: Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat,.J.] 1. This special appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules has been directed against the judgment and order dated 21-08-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5388 (S/S) of 2001 Bhupal Singh Jalal Vs. Managing Director and others whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. 2. A writ petition bearing No. 5388 of 2001 (S/S) was filed before the learned Single Judge by the writ petitioner- Bhupal Singh Jalal for the following reliefs: i. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20-09-1995 (Annexure-1) to writ petition. ii. To issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner with salary and pay him all his back wages. iii. To issue any other writ order or direction which this High Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. iv. Award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 3. The writ petitioner- Bhupal Singh Jalal (respondent) was appointed on the post of Scaler in Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation (hereinafter referred as Corporation) in January, 1990. He was posted as Scaler at Ranikhet, Almora. He was transferred vide order dated 25-05-1993 by the appellant No.3/Divisional Logging Manager, Nainital from Ranikhet Section Dalmothi to Nainital Section Khansuon. The writ petitioner (respondent) did not join his duties. He was again asked to join at transferred place but he did not pay any heed to it. Thereafter, on the representation of the writ petitioner (respondent), he was again transferred on 30-06-1993 from Nainital Logging Division to Tanakpur Logging Division but he did not comply the said transfer order also. He also remained absent from the duties. As the writ petitioner / respondent absented himself from duty, charge sheet was served to him and on the basis of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, the writ petitioner / respondent was dismissed vide order dated 20-09-1995. 4. The respondents/appellants have filed the counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit. It has been pleaded in the counter affidavit that he did not join the transferred place Khansuon in pursuance of the transfer order. When he did not join the transferred place he was again asked to report to duty at transferred place. 4. The respondents/appellants have filed the counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit. It has been pleaded in the counter affidavit that he did not join the transferred place Khansuon in pursuance of the transfer order. When he did not join the transferred place he was again asked to report to duty at transferred place. The writ petitioner/respondent in response of the above letter, made a request to the Regional Manager of the Corporation for transferring him to some other place and in response to his request the Regional Manager transferred him to Tanakpur Logging Division. It was also directed to the writ petitioner (respondent) to report to Divisional Logging Manager, Nainital by 12-07-1993. But he did not comply the order. It was further pleaded that he absented himself from duty without information, therefore he was served with the charge sheet. It was further pleaded that inquiry was conducted and the petitioner (respondent) was given opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty of the disobedience of the orders of the superiors and also of indulging in strike. Thereafter the writ petitioner/respondent was dismissed from service on 20-09-1995. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 20-09-1995 passed by the Divisional Logging Manager of the Corporation. It was also held that the writ petitioner/respondent was entitled to-50% back wages. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the present special appeal has been preferred by the respondents/appellants. 7. Heard Mr. V.K. Bist, learned Senior Counsel with Mrs. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for the appellants; Mr. J.C. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent and perused the record. 8. The writ petitioner/respondent had filed Cross Objection No.1 of 2003 in the appeal in question and prayed that the appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed. He further prayed that he is eligible for the full wages from the date of his transfer to the date of reinstatement in service. He further prayed that his cross objection be allowed with cost. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the writ petitioner / respondent was transferred on 25-05-1993 from Ranikhet Section Dalmothi to Nainital Section Khansuon. He did not join the transferred place at Khansuon and he was given reminder thereof. He further prayed that his cross objection be allowed with cost. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the writ petitioner / respondent was transferred on 25-05-1993 from Ranikhet Section Dalmothi to Nainital Section Khansuon. He did not join the transferred place at Khansuon and he was given reminder thereof. In response of the said letter, the writ petitioner / respondent requested the appellant No.2 / Regional Manager for transferring him to some other place and in response to his request the writ petitioner / respondent was transferred again on 30-06-1993 from Nainital Logging Division to Tanakpur Logging Division. The writ petitioner / respondent did not join his second place of transfer at Tanakpur and remained absent from his duties. Thereafter, charge sheet was served to him and in the course of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer had given full opportunity to defend the writ petitioner / respondent but he instead of cooperating with the Inquiry Officer, tried to hamper the inquiry. It was further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the Inquiry Officer was a witness against the writ petitioner / respondent in the inquiry. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner / respondent contended that the inquiry of the writ petitioner / respondent was entrusted to the Divisional Logging Manager, Tanakpur who was a witness in the said inquiry. It was further contended that a person who is a witness against the writ petitioner / respondent cannot be a judge of his own cause. The writ petitioner / respondent was seriously prejudiced by the inquiry report against him. 10. Perusal of the record reveals that on the request of the writ petitioner / respondent, the Inquiry Officer, G.C. Pant, Divisional Logging Manager, Nainital was changed and in his place Sri RP. Katiyar, Divisional Logging Manager, Tanakpur was appointed as inquiry officer by the Regional Manager, Nainital. In the charge sheet two letters of Sri RP. Katiyar have been shown as evidence against the writ petitioner / respondent. It is evident that these letters had been written by Sri RP. Katiyar and referred in the charge sheet as evidence against the writ petitioner / respondent. It is also well settled position of law, a person cannot be a judge of his own cause. The Inquiry Officer cannot rely on his own evidence. It is evident that these letters had been written by Sri RP. Katiyar and referred in the charge sheet as evidence against the writ petitioner / respondent. It is also well settled position of law, a person cannot be a judge of his own cause. The Inquiry Officer cannot rely on his own evidence. In view of the above, we find force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner / respondent. The learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the Inquiry Officer was a witness in support of the charge sheet and he himself had conducted the inquiry. Learned Single Judge was further justified in holding that no officer can be a judge and a witness in the same matter because it is against the principle of natural justice. We are completely in agreement with arguments raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent in this regard. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in holding that the writ petitioner / respondent was entitled to 50% back wages. He further contended that when the writ petitioner / respondent was transferred on 2505-1993 and 30-06-1993 but he never joined his transferred place in accordance with the direction of the transfer order. Thus, he had not worked in the transferred place, as such, he was dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner / respondent refuted the contention. The writ petitioner / respondent in para 15 of the writ petition had categorically pleaded that his services were neither kept under suspension nor he was paid" any salary during the pendency of the inquiry. It is also not disputed that he did not join at the transferred place. It is established from the record that the writ petitioner (respondent) never joined Khaunsuon, Nainital in pursuance of the transfer order and it is also established tl1at he did not resume his duties at Tanakpur in pursuance of the subsequent transfer order. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the writ petitioner / respondent is not entitled to get back wages as directed by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner / respondent contended that the writ petitioner / respondent made complaint against the senior officer for misappropriation of the Corporation wood. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the writ petitioner / respondent is not entitled to get back wages as directed by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner / respondent contended that the writ petitioner / respondent made complaint against the senior officer for misappropriation of the Corporation wood. The higher authorities also found substance in the complaint but no action was taken by them. The writ petitioner / respondent was compelled to seek the direction from the Court to lodge the F.I.R. against the accused. The transfer order was made on mala fide ground. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner / respondent contended that he is entitled to the full back wages from the date of his transfer to the date of reinstatement. He further contended that he is also entitled to the interest on the said amount. We do not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner / respondent. It is not disputed that the writ petitioner / respondent was an employee of the appellants / department and he disobeyed the order of the superior by not joining at the place of posting. He never challenged his transfer order on the ground of mala fide before the Court. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner / respondent is not sustainable at this stage. If he had any grievance at that time, he could have challenged his transfer order and could seek Redressal of his grievances from the court. This ground is not sufficient for the appellant not to join at the transferred place. He should have reported the duties at the transferred place. If he had not joined and had not worked at the transfer place, he is not entitled for the salary for the said period. It is well settled principle of law that if an employee had not worked for certain period then he is not entitled to get any salary for the same. There is no pleading on behalf of the writ petitioner / respondent that he was .restrained by the appellants from joining at the transferred place. In these circumstances, the writ petitioner / respondent is not entitled to get any amount of salary for the period from the date of transfer to the date of dismissal, i.e. 25-05-1993 to 20-09-1995. There is no pleading on behalf of the writ petitioner / respondent that he was .restrained by the appellants from joining at the transferred place. In these circumstances, the writ petitioner / respondent is not entitled to get any amount of salary for the period from the date of transfer to the date of dismissal, i.e. 25-05-1993 to 20-09-1995. The termination order was passed on 2009-1995 and the writ petition was allowed on 21-08-2003. The writ petitioner (respondent) never reported to his transferred place. It would be presumed that he would not have joined the transferred place if no dismissal order had been passed. Keeping in view of this fact, he would not have been entitled for any salary on the principle of 'No work he pay'. It is also well settled position of law that if the dismissal order is set aside, the reinstatement is the consequence of the said order. But now with the passage of time, it has come to the notice of the Court that the employer / appellants is being compelled to pay the employee for the period when he had apparently contributed nothing at all. While awarding the back wages, the Court has to assess the facts and circumstances of each case. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to award 25% of the back wages to the writ petitioner / respondent from the date of dismissal 20-09-1995 till reinstatement, i.e. 25-08-2003. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned Single Judge held that the inquiry was vitiated due to the reasons that the Inquiry Officer was a witness in the said inquiry and he could not have held the inquiry against the writ petitioner / respondent. The charges had already been framed. There was no challenge against the charges. It was further contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants should have been given liberty to institute the inquiry afresh from the stage from where it was vitiated. The charges had already been framed. There was no challenge against the charges. It was further contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants should have been given liberty to institute the inquiry afresh from the stage from where it was vitiated. It is evident that the inquiry has been vitiated only on the ground that Sri R.P. Katiyar, Inquiry Officer was a witness, hence it would be just and proper to give liberty to hold a fresh inquiry against the delinquent officer by appointing a fresh Inquiry Officer from the stage of the charge after giving the writ petitioner respondent a proper opportunity in accordance with law. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st August, 2003 with regard to setting aside of the inquiry and the punishment I dismissal of the writ petitioner on the basis of the inquiry is liable to be sustained. The amount of back wages which has been awarded by the learned Single Judge to 50%. is liable to be modified to the extent that the writ petitioner /respondent would not be entitled for any amount during the period 25-05-1993 to the order of dismissal, i.e. 20-09-1995. The writ petitioner /respondent would be entitled to 25% of the back wages from 21-09-1995 till the date of reinstatement, i.e., 25-08-2003. The appellants are granted liberty to hold fresh inquiry against the respondent by appointing another Inquiry Officer in accordance with law. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the above extent. The Cross Objection • claiming full back wages is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to costs.