RAN VIJAI SINGH, J. ( 1 ) 1. This writ petition has been filed by one Vimal Kumar, who happened to be a leather worker (Class IV employee) in Ordinance Equipment Factories Kanpur for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order of Central administrative Tribunal Allahabad dated 16. 7. 1997 in Original Application no. 490 of 1993 and orders dated 16. 9. 1992 and 25. 1. 1992 (annexure Nos. 6. 5 and 4 to the writ petition ). He has further prayed for issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service w. e. f. 25. 1. 1992 and to pay all back wages. Before the Central administrative tribunal the order of the disciplinary authority dated 25. 1. 1992 dismissing the petitioner from service and order dated 16. 9. 1992 of the appellate authority dismissing the petitioners appeal were challenged. The Tribunal has dismissed the application of the petitioner holding that it was not a fit case where the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority should be interfered with. ( 2 ) WE have heard Sri A. B. L. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and sri K. C. Sinha, Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was initially appointed on 9. 11. 1981 as a temporary leather worker in Ordinance Equipment Factories Kanpur and later on he has been confirmed on the said post. It is also brought on record that he has heavy liability to maintain his large family consisting of his wife, children and old ailing parents from his poor salary and due to want of proper nourishment the family members were not having good health. It is also averred that the petitioner could not attend his duties since 8. 11. 1990 to 21. 12. 1990 due to serious illness of his wife and for this he has been charge sheeted and the charge sheet was issued on 1. 2. . 1991, a copy of the charge sheet has been annexed as annexure 1 to the counter affidavit filed before the central Administrative Tribunal and brought on record of the writ petition through supplementary affidavit dated 26. 4. 2006. In para 7 of the writ petition it is stated that perhaps the enquiry about charges of absence for the period i. e. 6. 11. 1989 to 13. 12. 1989 and 8. 4. 2006. In para 7 of the writ petition it is stated that perhaps the enquiry about charges of absence for the period i. e. 6. 11. 1989 to 13. 12. 1989 and 8. 11. 1990 to 21. 12. 1990, were started in very closed proximity. The petitioner was punished for the absence from 6. 11. 1989 to 13. 12. 1989 by withholding two increments permanently. It is stated that the punishment order was passed on 23. 1. 1991 and immediately thereafter on 1. 2. 1991 a charge sheet was served on the petitioner with regard to absence from duty since 8. 11. 1990 to 21. 12. 1990. From the perusal of the record as contained in writ petition and counter affidavits it appears that the court of enquiry for the first time assembled on 9. 4. 1991 consisting of Sri Sukhlal, Foreman, enquiry officer, Sri D. S. Awasthi, presenting officer and Sri Vinaya Kumar, T. N. 132/l. C. S. and the enquiry officer has asked certain questions from the petitioner. The details of those questions are given below: -. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 4 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner has been served with a show cause notice along with enquiry report requiring his explanation for absence from duty w. e. f. 8. 11. 1990 to 21. 12. 1990 within three days. The contents of the letter is quoted below: -. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 5 ) AFTER receipt of the aforesaid letter the petitioner has submitted his reply on 17. 12. 1991. The reply of the petitioner dated 17. 12. 1991 is also quoted below: -. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 6 ) THE disciplinary authority has passed an order removing the petitioner from service w. e. f. 28. 1. 1992 on the basis of the enquiry report dated 9. 4. 1991. The disciplinary authority while passing the order of removal has considered the enquiry report in the following manner:- "and whereas a Court of Inquiry was constituted vide order No. LB/52/vk dt. 9. 4. 1991 to inquire into the charge levelled against the said Sri vimal Kumar. And whereas during the course of Court of Inquiry, the said Shri Vimal kumar has admitted the charge levelled against him. 9. 4. 1991 to inquire into the charge levelled against the said Sri vimal Kumar. And whereas during the course of Court of Inquiry, the said Shri Vimal kumar has admitted the charge levelled against him. And whereas the Inquiry Officer has concluded in his Report that the charge levelled against the said Shri Vimal Kumar has been proved beyond doubt. " "and whereas the undersigned carefully examined/ considered the Inquiry proceedings/ Inquiry Report representation of Sri Vimal Kumar and all aspects of the case and it has been considered that the article of charge as levelled against the said Shri Vimal Kumar is established beyond doubt. And whereas the undersigned has finally come to the conclusion that the said Shri Vimal Kumar is guilty of the charge levelled against him and he is not a fit person to be retained in Govt. service and therefore, the undersigned hereby imposes the penalty of "removal From Service" w. e. f. 28. 1. 1992 ( A/n) on the said Shri Vimal Kumar T. No. 132/lcs,p. No. 104095, leather Worker (s), OEFC, for misconduct of habitual unauthorized absence from duty and unauthorized absence from duty from 8. 11. 1990 to 21. 12. 1990. Aggrieved from the order of the disciplinary authority the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the appellate authority has discussed the point raised in the appeal and finally came to the conclusion that there is no force in the appeal and dismissed the same on 16. 9. 1992. While dismissing the appeal the appellate authority has made the following observations:-" (1) That he did not challenge the decision of G. M. Due to unawareness: (ii) That his wifes sickness has caused him great financial hardship due to continued treatment and his absence from duty was due to this fact; (iii) that he came under the grip of domestic problems money lenders and sickness of his father due to which he could not attend his duty properly and had to spend Rs. 3,000/- on his fathers eye treatment. The pleadings of the appellant from (i) to iii) are personal not related to the case and are not tenable. The individual after issue of Charge memo, did not care even to reply the Memo, which projects his passive attitude towards Govt. Service in as much as the Govt. work suffered a lot due to his misconducy in question. 04. The pleadings of the appellant from (i) to iii) are personal not related to the case and are not tenable. The individual after issue of Charge memo, did not care even to reply the Memo, which projects his passive attitude towards Govt. Service in as much as the Govt. work suffered a lot due to his misconducy in question. 04. In view of the foregoings, the undersigned does not find any mitigating circumstances to interfere into the penalty which has been imposed by G. M. On proven charge and for good and sufficient reasons and has decided to dismiss the appeal. " ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED from the judgment of the appellate authority the petitioner has filed Original Application No. 490 of 1993 before the Central administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and the tribunal has also declined to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority holding that no reason is found as to why the orders of disciplinary authority and appellate authority should be interfered with and consequently dismissed the original application. ( 8 ) FROM perusal of the above events it prima facie appears that enquiry has not been conducted as required under the Rule 14 and 15 of Central Civil services Rules,1965 (hereinafter referred to as Rule of 1965) and the enquiry has been dropped on the basis that the charge sheeted employee has admitted the charges unconditionally. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as Tribunal have proceed on the same ground treating the petitioners reply as unconditional admission of charge. Now following questions will arise for consideration. (a)Whether the manner and mode adopted by the enquiry officer while holding the enquiry proceeding dated 9. 4. 1991 was in accordance with Rule 14 of Rules of 1965 and reasonable opportunity was afforded to the charge sheeted employee to defend his case? (b) Whether the reply given by the employee could be treated unconditional, admitting the charges levelled against him? (c) Whether the disciplinary authority was right in dismissing the petitioner from service on the basis that the charges levelled against the petitioner were established beyond doubt? (d) Whether the appellate authority as well as the tribunal were right in dismissing the appeal and original application without taking into considering the grounds of appeal holding that these were personal grounds and were not related to the case? (d) Whether the appellate authority as well as the tribunal were right in dismissing the appeal and original application without taking into considering the grounds of appeal holding that these were personal grounds and were not related to the case? Now we are taking up question Nos. (a) and (b) together as both are related to each other. Since these questions are related to the enquiry proceedings and the Rule 14 of Rules of 1965 deals with the procedure for imposing major penalty on a charge sheeted employee, therefore, the relevant portion of Rule 14 and 15 are quoted below:-" (2)Whenever the disciplinary authorities is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1950, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. Explanation- where the disciplinary authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) to sub-rule (20) and in sub- rule (22) to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority. (3) where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up- (i) the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior into definite and distinct articles of charge: (ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge, which shall contain- (a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant; (b) a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the article of charge are proposed to be sustained (4) the disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the government servant a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charges is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government servant to submit, within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. (5) (a) on receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted, or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint, under the sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit in the manner laid down in Rule 15. (7 ). . . . and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior as the inquiring authority may,by notice in writing, specify in this behalf, or within such further time, not exceeding ten days, as the inquiring authority may allow. (10) The inquiring authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the Government servant pleads guilty. (20) If the Government servant to whom a copy of the articles of charge has been delivered, does not submit the written statement of defence on or before the date specified for the purpose or does not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this rule, the inquiring authority may hold the inquiry ex parte. (23) (i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, a report shall be prepared and it shall contain- (a)the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations, misconduct or misbehaviour; (b)the defence of the government servant in respect of each article of charge; (c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; (d) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons thereof; (d) written briefs, if any, filed by the Presenting Officer or the government servant or both during the course of the inquiry;and (e) the orders, if any, made by the disciplinary authority the inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry. (15) Action on the inquiry report- (i ). . . . (15) Action on the inquiry report- (i ). . . . (3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i)to (iv) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty: (4 ). . . . . . and it shall not be necessary to give the government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. " ( 9 ) FROM the perusal of above rules it is apparent that the manner and mode adopted by the enquiry officer was self engineered and not in consonance with the Rule 14 of 1965 Rules as there is no provision to require the reply of charge sheeted (Class IV illiterate) employee in the form of questions and answers. Particularly in a case where the employee can not understand the legal implications and legal niceties of the procedure and its serious consequence. Here in the present case a poor illiterate labourer (bread earner) fighting with his domestic problems has been required to appear before his superior officers i. e. the enquiry officer, the presenting officer and another officer. The enquiry officer has just started to put in question like prosecuting counsel to an accused and the poor man came up with clean heart and clean words stating that he could not attend the duties because of the serious condition of his wife, being only responsible man to look after the family and this time he may be excused in future he will not repeat it. The enquiry officer has committed the serious mistake in coming to the conclusion that the charges have been accepted unconditionally whereas apparent condition was attached that he could not attend the duties because of serious illness of his wife. In any event if the enquiry officer was reaching to the conclusion that the charge sheeted employee has unconditionally accepted the charge he should have given a reasonable opportunity for proving his caseconsidering the condition attached in admitting the quilt but instead of doing so he has dropped the inquiry proceeding by holding that charge levelled against the employee is established beyond doubt. In fact the established fact which we understand was that he was absent from duty w. e. f. 8. 11. 1990 to 21. 12. 1990 but the reason for absence was not unconditional, the condition attached for absence was the illness of his wife, therefore, it cannot be said that the employee has admitted the charges unconditionally. Question No. (c ). Since we have already held that the petitioner has admitted the charge of absence but it was not unconditional and the condition attached was illness of his wife. Therefore, the disciplinary authority has erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were established beyond doubt. Question No. (d) The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal holding that the ground taken in the appeal are personal and not related to the case. In our considered opinion the view taken by the appellate authority is not tenable in the eye of law as under the service rules different type of facilities are extended to the government employees i. e. medical facilities to the government employees including their family members, LTC facilities and many other facilities. Even after the death of the employees the legislature has taken care to redress the financial crunch immediately fallen on the family of the deceased employees by making provisions under the rules for the appointment of a dependent of the deceased. Therefore, it will be very difficult to hold that the ground nos. 2 and 3 of the appeal are related to their personal problems and not related to the case. In fact, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority should have given an opportunity to the charge sheeted employee to prove his case by producing medical certificate etc. with regard to the illness of his wife and his father instead of closing the enquiry by holding the petitioner guilty for absence from the duty. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex Court reported in JT 1996 (2) SC 648. ( Malkiat Singh Vs. State of punjab and others ). Where a constable was charge sheeted on the ground that he had remained absent from duty for more than one month and 9 days and during the disciplinary proceeding he has shown cause of absence because of certain complication in his wifes delivery. ( Malkiat Singh Vs. State of punjab and others ). Where a constable was charge sheeted on the ground that he had remained absent from duty for more than one month and 9 days and during the disciplinary proceeding he has shown cause of absence because of certain complication in his wifes delivery. The constable was also found negligent in attending the duty on two occasions more and was dismissed from his services. The Honble Supreme Court dealing with the question of absence has made following observations:- "the explanation offered for the absence on third occasion was that since in his wifes delivery certain complication had arisen, he had to attend to his wife and so he could not be present. The Medical Certificate in that behalf was produced. In view of the Medical certificate, it can not be said that he had deliberately absented himself from duty. On the previous two occasions, the absence for one day and in another year for one night can not be considered to be regular absence so as to reach the conclusion that he had not proved his efficiency. It is true that discipline is required to be maintained. However, absence may sometimes be inevitable. In the facts and circumstances of this case, an opportunity may be given to the appellant to work efficiently to prove his excellence. The order of discharge is set aside. The respondents are directed to take the appellant into service forthwith. If the appellant absents himself again for two consecutive days within one year without prior permission, appropriate action may be taken by dismissing him from service. The appellant, however, is not entitled to back wages. " ( 10 ) IN view of the above decision of Honble Apex Court as well as in view of the observations made in the body of the judgment, we further held that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority has committed serious error of law in holding that grounds No. (ii) and (iii) of the appeal were personal one and not related to the case. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the Honble apex Court judgment reported in JT 2006 (2) SC 82 ( Government of A. P. and others Vs. Mohd Nasrullah Khan. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the Honble apex Court judgment reported in JT 2006 (2) SC 82 ( Government of A. P. and others Vs. Mohd Nasrullah Khan. In this case the High Court of Andhra pradesh has interfered with the decision of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority by setting aside the orders by re-appreciating the evidence. The Honble Apex Court held that the High Court has erred in re-appreciating the evidence and setting aside the factual findings. In our considered opinion the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is distinguishable on the facts and law both considering the pleading of the parties and other aspect of the case, we are of the view that neither the enquiry has been held in a manner as prescribed under Rule 14 of 1965 Rules nor reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend his case. The enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority have not proceeded in consonance with the rule 14 and 15 of the Rules of 1965 (Enquiry Rule), therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 16. 7. 1997 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in Original Application No. 490 of 1993, 16. 9. 1992 and 25. 1. 1992 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority (annexure nos. 6,5,4 to this writ petition)are quashed and the matter is remanded back before the enquiry officer to proceed with the enquiry from the stage of service of charge sheet in accordance with the rule. The petitioner shall be placed in the same position as he was during the inquiry proceedings. So far as the back wages are concerned that will depend on the fate of the further enquiry. There will be no order as to cost.