Judgment Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. The present Special Appeal has been filed by the State of Uttaranchal (now 'Uttarakhand? against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13th July, 2006 whereby the order of dismissal of the writ petitioner was set-aside and the writ petitioner (now 'Respondent' in Special Appeal) was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential service benefits. 2. We have heard Sri Vinod Nautiyal, the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants and Sri M.C. Kandpal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S.S. Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner. 3. It transpires that the writ petitioner was transferred from Hamirpur to Chamoli, but before joining he fell ill and, consequently, did not report for duty. It further transpires that the Superintendent of Police, Chamoli initiated disciplinary proceedings. It is alleged that notices were duly served upon the writ petitioner and, inspite of service, he did not appear and, consequently, ex-parte proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. Based on the report of the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal dated 30-04-2000. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Garwal Region, which was rejected by an order dated 25-01-2001. Consequently, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which was allowed by a judgment dated 13th July, 2006. 4. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, found that the writ petitioner was never served with any notice and that the entire disciplinary proceedings proceeded exparte against the writ petitioner. Consequently, the learned Single Judge vitiated the domestic enquiry proceedings on the strength of violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge further quashed the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order and further directed the writ petitioner to be reinstated in service with all consequential service benefits. 5. Consequently, the learned Single Judge vitiated the domestic enquiry proceedings on the strength of violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge further quashed the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order and further directed the writ petitioner to be reinstated in service with all consequential service benefits. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that once the domestic enquiry proceedings was set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, the learned Single Judge could not have reinstated the writ petitioner with all consequential service benefits, but, ought to have remitted the matter back to the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing and affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend himself the enquiry proceedings. This view of ours is in consonance with the principle enunciated by a majority decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Direct, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows : "7. (v) ............ Where after following the above procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled." 6. In view of the aforesaid, the order of the learned Single in so far as it relates to the reinstatement of the writ petitioner with consequential service benefits is set aside. In view of the aforesaid, the order of the learned Single in so far as it relates to the reinstatement of the writ petitioner with consequential service benefits is set aside. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority, who will direct the Enquiry Officer to hold and conclude the enquiry within six months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order. The writ petitioner will cooperate in the enquiry proceedings. The disciplinary authority will pass the order upon the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings. During this period, the writ petitioner would remain under suspension and would be paid the Suspension Allowance. The arrears of salary from the initial period of suspension till the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings would remain in abeyance and would be subject to the final order, which would be passed by the disciplinary authority. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the Special Appeal is partly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own cost.