Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners, at the relevant time, were constables in the Katihar Railway Police and were the members of the escorting party of Train No. 5819 Down. While, escorting the train, they are alleged to have indulged in unauthorized ticket checking in which they are alleged to have collected Rs. 450/- and 264/-which allegation was reported to by one of the victims, Ramdeo Mandal to the Incharge of the Escorting Party, namely, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Sri Mahadeo Singh, who submitted his written report on the basis of which petitioners were placed under suspension and departmental proceeding was initiated against them by the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Katihar when he issued charge-sheet dated 10.9.1993 naming the witnesses and the exhibits, which were to be relied upon during the proceedings. The Enquiry Officer, having considered the evidence relied upon in support of the charge, submitted his report holding the petitioners guilty of the charges levelled against them, which was considered by the disciplinary authority who issued second show cause notice dated 28.2.1997 calling upon the petitioners to show cause within 15 days as to why they be not dismissed from service. In response thereto petitioners filed reply which is contained in Annexure-3 to their application. Disciplinary Authority having considered the same, dismissed petitioner Bal Kishun Mochi under orders, bearing Memo. No. 1270, dated 5.10.1999, Annexure-4 in CWJC No. 3544 of 2001 and petitioner Shiv Shanker Singh under orders, bearing Memo. No. 1629, dated 27.12.1999, Annexure-4 in CWJC No. 12673 of 2002. They assailed their dismissal order before the Appellate Authority and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.4.2000, Annexure-5 in both the applications. Their memorial before the Director General-cum-lnspector General of Police was also dismissed under orders dated 9.11.2000 in the case of petitioner Bal Kishun Mochi, Annexure-6 in CWJC No. 3544 of 2001 and order dated 15.7.2002 in the case of petitioner Shiv Shanker Singh, Annexure-6 in CWJC No. 12673 of 2002. 3. Petitioners are assailing the aforesaid dismissal/appellate orders as also the order passed on the memorial as contained in Annexures-4, 5 and 6 by filing these writ applications on the ground that the entire disciplinary proceeding taking against them, including appellate order and revisional order are non est in the eye of law as they were not given adequate opportunity to defend themselves before the Enquiry Officer. In support of their contention, they are relying on the receipt appended with the counter affidavit filed in the two cases, which is dated 23.9.1999 in the case of petitioner Bal Kishun Mochi and 30.11.1999 in the case of petitioner Shiv Shanker Sinha and with reference to those receipts, it is submitted that the memo of charge and the documents relied upon in support of charge were served on the petitioners on 23.9.1999 and 30.11.1999 and the report of the Enquiry Officer was submitted prior to issue of second show cause notice dated 28.2.1997, thus, they had no opportunity at all to rebut the charges levelled against them before the Enquiry Officer as the memo of charge itself and the exhibits in support thereof were served on the petitioners on 23.9.1999 and 30.11.1999 and if they had no opportunity to rebutt the charges before the Enquiry Officer, proceeding taken before the Enquiry Officer as also after submission of the enquiry report is absolutely non est for failure to serve the charge sheet alongwith exhibits in support of the charges which was served on the two petitioners on 23.9.1999 and 30.11.1999 and the enquiry report stood submitted even prior to 28.2.1997. From the report dated 23.9.1999 and 30.11.1999, it is crystal clear that memo of charge and exhibits in support thereof were served on the petitioners on 23.9.1999 and 30.11.1999 after submission of the enquiry report, in the circumstances, it is not difficult to hold that the petitioners had no opportunity to defend themselves before the Enquiry Officer and once I hold that the petitioners had no opportunity to defend themselves before the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry report, dismissal order, appellate order and the revisional order dated 5.10.1999/27.12.1999, 19.4.2000 and 9.11.2000/15.7.2002, as contained in Annexures-4, 5 and 6 are, accordingly, quashed with direction to the petitioners to appear before the Railway Superintendent of Police, Katihar who should relegate the petitioners to the Enquiry Officer, if the same Enquiry Officer is still available and if he is not available then he shall appoint any other Officer, who is competent to hold enquiry as Enquiry Officer before whom the petitioners shall file their written defence within three weeks from the date, the Enquiry Officer is notified by the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Katihar and the Enquiry Officer thereafter shall proceed with the enquiry proceeding on day to day basis and the petitioners are directed to co-operate with the Enquiry Officer so that the enquiry proceeding is concluded within three months from the date of appointment/notification of the Enquiry Officer by the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Katihar. The arrears of salary for the period of dismissal until passing of this order shall be subject to the result of the enquiry, which shall be taken in the light of this order and if the petitioners were under suspension prior to their dismissal then after their appearance before the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Katihar, they shall remain under suspension during the period of enquiry. It is further made clear that the Enquiry Officer shall peruse the order sheet of the earlier enquiry proceeding and if it appears therefrom that in the earlier enquiry proceeding in spite of due opportunity, petitioners had not chosen to cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the charge, then the authorities shall not be obliged to examine those witnesses once again. 4. These writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of.