Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. By this common order, two writ petitions being Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5880 of 1992 and 6086 of 2000 can be decided together. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 5880 of 1992. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of enquiry report dated 22.8.1988, Annexure P-7 whereby it was held that the petitioner is responsible for the shortage of fertilizer. Vide order dated 18.11.1988, Annexure P-ll petitioner was dismissed from service. It was further ordered that he will make good the loss of 200 bags of Urea and 55 bags of DAP. It will be apposite to reproduce the following portion of the dismissal order :- "The case relates basically to shortage of fertilizer of which Sh. Bharti was the joint custodian. While the enquiry has shown that the fertilizer had been received in unstandard form, yet it is equally clear that the shortage based on results of earlier test weighments would have been lessby almost 200 bags in the case of Urea. Moreover, there is also evidence to suggest that Sh- Bharti aided and abetted the process of pilferage and was in fact caught red handed while doing so by the Sr. Branch Officer. The same position almost held good in respect of DAP. Even if the defence version is accepted, there is still a shortage of 55 bags which is not satisfactorily accounted for On the other hand, the Sr. Branch Officer, co-accused in this case has clearly stated that he has received complaints about sale of 55 bags of fertilizer by Shri Bharti. In these circumstances, it is clear that this official was actively involved in the pilferage of markfed stocks and that shortages accruing were certainly abnormal. This conclusion is further corroborated by the Sub sequent conduct of this official, who while associating himself with the proceedings of the Committee chose to absent himself when these were finalised and was expected to sign the conclusions arrived at. His remaining absent till he was posted elsewhere also indicates his anxiety to be away from the scene of his misdeeds. His remaining absent till he was posted elsewhere also indicates his anxiety to be away from the scene of his misdeeds. In the circumstances, where a Markfed employee has actively connived at the pilferage of Markfed stocks of which he was supposed to be the custodian, and where there are no mitigating circumstanees for the type of shortage that have been depicted, I have not been able to take a lenient view and accordingly order that he may be dismissed from service. In addition, he shall make good the loss for 200 bags of Urea and 55 bags of DAP which in any case has been caused by him after discounting for shortness on account of receipt of unstandard material." Thereafter vide resolution dated 8.5.1990, Annexure P-12. appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Vide Annexure P-13 revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. A prayer has been made that along with order of dismissal, orders passed in appeal and revision be also quashed. 3. Notice of motion was issued. Reply was filed, in which it was stated that petitioner was named as an accused in FIR No. 6 dated 8.1.1981 registered at Police Station Moga under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 4. Mr. Bhan has stated that after filing of the replication, petition was admitted for regular hearing on 29.10.1992. Mr. Bhan has further stated that during the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 5880 of 1992, petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6086 of 2000, as new facts have emerged and in subsequent writ petition, he has sought his reinstatement in service with full back wages and consequential benefits. The FIR had been withdrawn and further more the matter was referred to the Arbitrator for recovery of the shortage of fertilizer. Mr. Bhan has further stated that dismissal order and claim of the Markfed for recovery of amount of shortage is on the identical grounds. It has been stated that the case projected by the Department before the Arbitrator was in no way different from the facts which have been relied upon in Annexure P-11. It has been stated that Arbitrator after granting hearing to both the parties came to the conclusion that the charges levelled by the Markfed against the petitioner are not proved. Order of the Arbitrator has been attached as Annexure P-1 with Civil Writ Petition No. 6086 of 2008. It has been stated that Arbitrator after granting hearing to both the parties came to the conclusion that the charges levelled by the Markfed against the petitioner are not proved. Order of the Arbitrator has been attached as Annexure P-1 with Civil Writ Petition No. 6086 of 2008. The Arbitrator had concluded as under :- "Both the parties were heard and the record produced was seen and the written statements of both the parties were examined. In the end, I have reached on the conclusion that this case has been prepared only on the report of the Investigating Officer. If from Markfed this mediator case was to be prepared, then the same was required to be framed against both the officials on which their control on Godown was with double lock but the first party has not done like this, which proves the personal enmity, which record produced has been seen. The charge report of stock which was with the 2nd party on 28.2.81, has been prepared and its photo-copy is also available in the file, which is clear at the time of taking hearing that the overwriting/ cutting has been made in it. In addition to this, when on 8.8.80, 2nd party, took the charge of Fertilizer stock from Shri Rajinder Singh, F.A., then regarding this on 12.8.80, the Senior Branch Officer of that time reported to the Distt. Manager, Markfed, Faridkot, after test weighment which has been agreed by the Distt. Manager that the written reply given in the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana becomes clear. According to that letter the 57400 kg. Urea each 9253 Kg. D.A.P. are there. In this way, there was a deficiency of 1148 bags and 185 Bags of D.A.P. Markfed, was required to frame the case at that time against the official of that time from whom charge was received. But the Markfed (1st Party) has not done as such. It is clear when the 2nd party took the charge with S.B.O. At that time, which was the shortage, that deficiency has been shown at the time of taking the charge, was in excess at that time. As such, there was no shortage. In this way, which charge Markfed (1 st Party) has levelled against Shri B.B. Bharti (2nd Party) is not proved and this case has been prepared wrongly. So, 1. As such, there was no shortage. In this way, which charge Markfed (1 st Party) has levelled against Shri B.B. Bharti (2nd Party) is not proved and this case has been prepared wrongly. So, 1. declare the claim of the 1st Party as wrong. Decision which was kept reserved on 23.8.96, has been written on 29.10.96. Parties may be informed accordingly." It has been further stated by Mr. Bhan that the order passed by the Arbitrator was challenged by the Markfed - employer in appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The appeal preferred by the Markfed was dismissed and the order of the Appellate Authority was again challenged in revision. Mr. Bhan relied upon Annexure P-3 of Civil Writ Petition No. 6086 of 2000 to contend that the revisional authority had remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority thereafter again concluded that the petitioner was not responsible for the shortage. 5. Mr. Bhan states that the order of the Arbitrator has attained finality. Mr. Bhan has further drawn my attention to Annexures P-5 and P-7 attached with Civil Writ Petition No. 6086 of 2000 to state that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies had issued direction to the Managing Director, Markfed, Chandigarh calling upon his explanation as to why the petitioner has not been reinstated into service. 6. Admittedly change of circumstances had taken place by passing of the award by the Arbitrator and the subsequent orders Annexures P-5 and P-7 attached with Civil Writ Petition No. 6086 of 2000 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to the Managing Director, Markfed. It has been further submitted that at present two contrary findings by the authorities in parallel proceedings are there and, therefore, they ought to be reconciled. Order of dismissal was passed earlier therefore, due consideration has not been given to the order passed by the Arbitrator in award and the Appellate Authority where the order was challenged. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate that if the employer or the authority which has dismissed the appeal against dismissal, decide the matter afresh taking into consideration Annexure P-1 the award passed by the Arbitrator and Annexure P- 3 order of the Appellate Authority along with orders Annexure P-5 and P-7 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies attached with Civil Writ Petition No. 6086 of 2000. Needless to say that since the matter has to be decided afresh, impugned orders Annexures P-7, P-11 and P-12 to Civil Writ Petition No. 5880 of 1992, cannot stand in the way, are set aside and the authorities would be at liberty to pass further orders taking the entire gamut of the matter into consideration. It has been stated that the petitioner has expired and his legal representatives have been brought on record and widow is living in penury and has no means to maintain, herself. Therefore, the authorities be directed to decide the matter expeditiously. Accordingly, the authorities shall pass fresh orders within six months from the receipt of copy of this order. Writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.