MANMOHAN SARIN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 27. 7. 2006 passed by the tribunal in OA No. 281/2006. By the said judgment, the Tribunal had passed the following order:- "in the light of the above, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, we partly allow this OA and set aside the impugned order. As a result thereof, the applicant would be reinstated in service forthwith. The interregnum period of from earlier removal in 1999 till the date of reinstatement shall have to be treated as the period of suspension with grant of subsistence allowance to the applicant. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed, is so advised, against the applicant from the state of according an opportunity of defence and thereafter to complete the inquiry. The outcome of the inquiry shall govern the future progression of the consequential benefits. It is, however, needless to mention that in the event of the decision to resume the inquiry is taken by the respondents, utmost co-operation of applicant is required. The benefits would have to be accorded to the applicant, as directed above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. " ( 2 ) IT has been the contention of the petitioners' before the Court, inter alia, that the respondent had willfully abstained from participation in the inquiry proceedings and he cannot be permitted to frustrate the disciplinary proceedings and result thereof. ( 3 ) MR. BHARDWAJ submits that this case has a checkered history where the respondent has been a victim of persecution by the petitioners and the respondent was compelled to file OA No. 246/2002, which was allowed by the tribunal on 5. 9. 2003 by passing the following order:- "in the result for the foregoing reasons, without dealing with other contentions of applicant, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Applicant is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. However, respondents are at liberty to further proceed the enquiry, if so advised, by placing applicant under suspension and resume the enquiry from the stage of furnishing applicant copy of the enquiry report. Applicant is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. However, respondents are at liberty to further proceed the enquiry, if so advised, by placing applicant under suspension and resume the enquiry from the stage of furnishing applicant copy of the enquiry report. The intervening period and benefits including back wages would be decided by the respondents in accordance with rules and instructions and would be subject to the outcome of the orders passed. Aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The OA stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. " ( 4 ) MR. BHARDWAJ submits that the inquiry report conducted by the petitioners apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, the inquiry report itself was absolutely sketchy and a non-speaking one. He further contends that this is a case where de novo inquiry has to be directed so that the respondent gets justice. ( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the matter and also perused the earlier orders passed by our predecessor bench. ( 6 ) ONE of the contention raised by the petitioners is that the respondent has been evading service and avoiding the inquiry proceedings and was not willing to participate in the inquiry proceedings. ( 7 ) UPON hearing both the counsel and respondent, who is present in court, the following consent order is passed:- " (i) The petitioners would within a week from today appoint an Inquiry officer and also reinstate the petitioner. (ii) The evidence already recorded by the petitioners in the previous proceedings would be taken as evidence led for the purpose of the inquiry. The respondent has no objection to the same. (iii) Respondent hereby withdraws all his legal and other objections to the inquiry being conducted and undertakes to cooperate fully in the inquiry proceedings. (iv) Respondent would be at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner. Respondent would lead and conclude its evidence within two months from the date of completion of the cross-examination of petitioner's witnesses. Respondent would bring his evidence at his own responsibility. Petitioner would be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal. (v) The Inquiry Officer shall issue notice for hearing to the respondent at the address contained in the petition. Respondent would lead and conclude its evidence within two months from the date of completion of the cross-examination of petitioner's witnesses. Respondent would bring his evidence at his own responsibility. Petitioner would be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal. (v) The Inquiry Officer shall issue notice for hearing to the respondent at the address contained in the petition. Learned counsel for the respondent states notice may be served through respondent's counsel and the same shall be treated as proper service on the respondent for further proceedings. (vi) The petitioners shall reinstate the respondent within a week. The subsistence allowance, if not already paid to the respondent, shall be paid within a week. Entitlement to pay and allowances shall be decided by the disciplinary authority upon conclusion of the inquiry proceedings. (vii) The respondent has undertaken to strictly abide by the aforesaid consent terms and shall fully co-operate in the inquiry proceedings. (viii) The petitioners shall also give necessary leave, as required by the respondent, to defend his case as per rules. " The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.