JUDGMENT: Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this writ application is to the Office order No. P VIII-3/2002-106-Estb.-2-dated 23.4.2003 (Annexure-3) issued by the Commandant, 106 Battalion, RAF (H.Q.), Telco, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 4) whereby a punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner by way of withdrawal of two increments with cumulative effect and cancellation of 50 days of earned leave, adjustment of 321 days as E.O.L and refusing to count the period of suspension as a period permitted only. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order No. R. XIII-15/2003-R.A.F..-estb-3 dated 31.1.2004 (Annexure-4) issued by the Respondent No. 3 and also for quashing the order No. RXIII, 2/04 Adm. 1(MWK) dated 7.10.2004 (Annexure-5) issued by the Respondent No. 1. 3. Facts of the petitioner's case in brief is as follows: Petitioner was posted as a Hawaldar / driver of the Rapid Action Force 106 Battalion. He proceeded on leave on 5.3.2001 for attending the marriage of his sister at his native place after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities. On his reaching his native place, he was informed that though, in an earlier criminal case instituted against him, the investigating officer had submitted final report exonerating the petitioner, but in course of the trial, an order was passed by the Trial Court under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, making the petitioner as an accused in the case and demanding his appearance in the case for facing trial. 4. Considering the fact that warrant of arrest has been issued against him, he had surrendered himself before the Trial Court on 15.03.2001 and upon his prayer for bail being rejected, he was remanded to judicial custody. 5. Upon being remanded to custody, the petitioner had forwarded an intimation to his superior officer about his detention and for extending the period of his leave. Such intimation, according to the petitioner, was forwarded by the Jail Superintendent vide Memo No. 686 dated 18.5.2001, addressed to the superior officer of the petitioner. 6. Upon being released on bail, the petitioner presented himself for joining duty at the RAF Headquarters-106 on 29.01.2002. 7. Upon his reporting for duty, he was promptly put under suspension on the ground of over staying the leave period and charge sheet was issued to him on 28.2.2002 in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. 8. 6. Upon being released on bail, the petitioner presented himself for joining duty at the RAF Headquarters-106 on 29.01.2002. 7. Upon his reporting for duty, he was promptly put under suspension on the ground of over staying the leave period and charge sheet was issued to him on 28.2.2002 in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. 8. The charge on which the proceeding was initiated,was that he had overstayed the period of leave without prior intimation and further, that he had suppressed material fact about his being remanded to judicial custody and had instead, put forth a false plea of his being suffering from jaundice, as a reason for his not being able to join duty after expiry of the period for which leave was granted to him. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that in the proceeding, witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The documents on which the Inquiry Officer had proceeded to place reliance, was a letter purportedly submitted by the petitioner praying for extension of the period of his leave on the ground of his suffering from jaundice. The petitioner had denied of his being the author of the said letter and as many as three witnesses who were examined by the prosecution, had declared and affirmed that the purported letter does not bear the hand writing or signature of the petitioner. Yet, without assigning reasons as to why the evidences of these witnesses should not be relied upon and without comparing the handwriting and signature of the disputed letter with any admitted handwriting and signature of the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has proceeded to rely upon the document and recorded adverse findings against the petitioner. Learned counsel adds further that the fact that the petitioner was in detention, was intimated to the concerned authorities of the petitioner by letter forwarded by the Jail Superintendent and this fact was very much within the knowledge of the Inquiry Officer. This is amply demonstrated by the letters and correspondence exchanged between the Jail Superintendent and the petitioner's superior in office. This is amply demonstrated by the letters and correspondence exchanged between the Jail Superintendent and the petitioner's superior in office. One such letter issued by his superior officer on 17.4.2003, indicates that with reference to an earlier letter dated 22.1.2003, the department had sought information and clarification concerning the petitioner's detention in custody and in reply thereto, the Jail Superintendent vide his letter dated 20.04.2003, had informed that the requisite information were already forwarded to the department authority of the petitioner vide letter dated 20.02.203. Learned counsel submits that these letters amply demonstrate the fact of the petitioner's detention in custody during the relevant period, was well within the knowledge of the Inquiry officer and yet, without adverting to the letters and correspondences, and without affording adequate opportunity to enable the Jail Authorities to respond to the last letter issued by the petitioner's superior officer, the Inquiry officer had proceeded to record his adverse findings in his Inquiry Report with an observation that till the date of his recording the findings, no intimation was received from the concerned authorities of the jail. Learned counsel submits that this aspect of the matter clearly indicates that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not based on the actual facts which have been brought on record by the petitioner and further, the findings were recorded without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to explain the matters in proper perspective. Learned counsel submits further that in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on and from 15.03.2001, there could be no reason as to why the petitioner would forward a false statement claiming his illness as a ground for extending the period of his leave. 10. Upon the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel reiterates that the findings of the Inquiry Officer which are contrary to the evidences on record, are perverse and without appreciation of the evidences in proper perspective. 11. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents would want to explain that there is no infirmity in the inquiry conducted against the petitioner and that, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend his case and upon considering the evidences on record, the Inquiry Officer had recorded his findings that the charge against the petitioner stood proved. Learned counsel for the respondents would want to explain that there is no infirmity in the inquiry conducted against the petitioner and that, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend his case and upon considering the evidences on record, the Inquiry Officer had recorded his findings that the charge against the petitioner stood proved. The conduct of the petitioner, as per the charge, being acts of misconduct, the petitioner was reasonably found liable for punishment as imposed against him by his Disciplinary Authority. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also having gone through the report of the Inquiry Officer as well as the impugned order, I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. As it appears, reasonable and appreciable evidence has come on record which create a genuine dispute regarding the genuineness of the letter on which the Inquiry Officer has relied upon claiming that the letter was issued by the petitioner containing false averments and false statement and from which, an inference was drawn by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner had suppressed material information regarding his being detained in judicial custody. 14. The Inquiry Officer has not given any convincing reason as to why the evidences of the prosecution's witnesses on the issue regarding the genuineness of the purported letter, was rejected. Before proceeding to reject the evidence of the witness and rely upon the disputed letter, the Inquiry Officer has not made any effort to compare the handwriting and signature of the disputed letter with the admitted handwriting and signature of the petitioner. Likewise, it also appears that though, information regarding the petitioner's detention in custody was already communicated by the Jail Authorities to the Superior officer of the petitioner much prior to the date of recording the Enquiry Report, yet the same was not considered and on the contrary, an adverse inference was drawn by the Inquiry Officer that no intimation regarding the petitioner's detention in custody was conveyed to him prior to the date of recording his findings in his inquiry report. The findings of the inquiry Officer does appear to be perverse and contrary to the evidences. 15. The findings of the inquiry Officer does appear to be perverse and contrary to the evidences. 15. It also appears that the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority have not considered the above infirmities, both in the inquiry report, as also in the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority, as pointed out by the petitioner and have merely adopted the report of the disciplinary authority without application of mind and the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority as also that of the Appellate and Revisional Authorities have been passed without application of mind. 16. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am convinced that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are perverse in as much as, they are not in consonance with the evidences on record and has been passed without application of mind. 17. For the above reasons, this application is allowed. The impugned orders as contained in Annexures-3, 4 and 5, are hereby set aside. The disciplinary authority shall record a fresh finding on the basis of the inquiry report and take a decision accordingly, within three months from the date of this order and intimate the same to the petitioner accordingly.