JUDGMENT Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.-This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Radhey Shyam Sharma, who was serving the respondent-Railway Protection Force on the post of Naik. A charge-sheet was issued to him under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 on 15.12.1994 which contained two charges. Charge No.1 was to the effect that he was under treatment of the Divisional Medical Officer, Reengus since 10.3.1994, but he disappeared from the hospital on 5.4.1994, and continued to remain absent from his duty without any intimation upto 30.5.1994. He then again remained absent from 6.4.1994 to 27.9.1994. His such willful absence was misconduct under Rule 116.2(i)(iii) and 147(ii)(vi) of the Railway Protection Force Rules. Second charge was hat he unauthorisedly occupied the railway quarter No. U325/B, which was allotted to one Kishan Lal, Head Clerk and despite specific order by Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, to vacate such quarter, he failed to vacate said quarter and thereby committed a misconduct under rule 146.3(i) of the Rules of 1987. Petitioner denied the charges and filed reply. The Enquiry Officer however in his report found all the charges proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority on that basis by order dated 27.4.1995 imposed penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. His appeal filed there against was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 27.10.1995 and thereafter the revision petition was also rejected by the Revisional Authority by order dated 25.1.1996. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Shri Reashm Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the charge-sheet itself contained explanation of the petitioner for his Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Rafiq, J.) absence and, therefore, absence of the petitioner could not be said to be willful. In the statement of allegations, it was clearly mentioned that petitioner was issued sickness certificate by Divisional Medical Officer on 10.3.1991 and that his name was removed from the records of indoor patients of the hospital by discharge certificate dated 5.4.1994 and that the petitioner by letter dated 6.6.1994 send on application under U.P.C. letter for extension of his medical leave, which was accompanied by a medical certificate for a period of 15 days issued by a private medical practitioner Shri Moti Lal Verma, Bandikui dated 31.5.1994. Thereafter, petitioner submitted such similar applications for subsequent period on 15.6.94 to 29.6.94 and then on 5.7.94, 19.7.94, 4.8.94, 19.8.94, 2.9.94 and 16.9.94. Each of these applications were accompanied by medical certificates of 15 days. The Disciplinary Authority did not either reject the leave applications of the petitioner, nor sanctioned the leave. In the circumstances, therefore, application of the petitioner remained undecided. When the charge-sheet was sent to the Enquiry Officer for proceeding, number of documents were forwarded to him including the sickness certificate of the petitioner dated 10.3.1994, discharge certificate dated 5.4.94 and duty certificate dated 27.9.1994, but none of those applications, despite being referred in the statement of allegations, was forwarded to the Enquiry Officer. When this issue was specifically raised by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, which reference to the fitness certificate dated 27.9.1994, he merely brushed aside the arguments by observing that this issue did not concern the Enquiry Officer and therefore did not require his comments. It is contended when a charge-sheet is issued to the delinquent and he files reply there to and take a particular stand to explain his conduct, the Enquiry Officer is duty obliged to consider such explanation and give his finding, one way or the other. The Enquiry Officer having not decided this issue, has failed to discharge his duties under the rules. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgments of this Court in Avadh Behari Panchauri vs. State, 2004(2) WLC (Raj.) 549 = RLW 2004(2) Raj. 954, Ram Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., 2002(3) RLR 106 and judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mohd. Akhter Ali vs. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board, Hyderabad & Ors., 1987(3) SLJ 178. Learned counsel also submitted that the Enquiry officer was to perform his function fairly and reasonably. He has to give his reasoning for accepting or not accepting any material put forward by the delinquent. The Enquiry Officer has prepared an absolutely cryptic and non-speaking report and that issues, which were referred to him for adjudication, have not been actually decided by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer & Ors., (I985) 3 SCC 378, Union of India & Ors. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer & Ors., (I985) 3 SCC 378, Union of India & Ors. vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 394 and judgment of Bombay High Court in P.A. Karkhanis vs. UCO Bank, Mumbai & Ors. 2009(5) Mh.LJ. 444 . 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the argument that while the charge against the petitioner was of absence under intimation, whereas the Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding of willful absence of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer could not have travelled beyond the scope of charge while giving his finding and if there is no charge of willful absence, no such finding could be recorded him. 4. On second charge, Shri Reashm Bhargava learned counsel submitted that the quarter was occupied by the petitioner's wife and not by the petitioner. This quarter was situated at Bandikui, whereas the petitioner was posted at Reengus. His wife had occupied such quarter without any intimation or permission from the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner could not be held guilty for that charge. In any case, the quarter as vacated by the family, but that was done twenty days after the date of issuance of notice by the Divisional Security Commissioner. In the notice, quarter was required to be vacated within seven days. It can at the maximum taken to be case of delay in making compliance of the notice for vacating the quarter. For a charge of his minor nature, imposition of penalty like. compulsory retirement would be wholly unjustified. Learned counsel in this connection cited the judgment of Orissa High Court in Sudarsan Giri vs. Union of India & Ors., 109 (2010) CLT 426. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner raised all these arguments and many other arguments in his appeal, but the appellate authority has by an equally non-speaking and cryptic order, dismissed the appeal without appreciating any of those issues. On the contrary, he has in the concluding part of the order written that petitioner has not raised any point concerning the charges, therefore, he was not required to deal with them in detail. To contradict this finding, learned counsel referred to the memorandum of appeal show that number of arguments were raised, which in fact were not at all considered by appellate authority. 5. To contradict this finding, learned counsel referred to the memorandum of appeal show that number of arguments were raised, which in fact were not at all considered by appellate authority. 5. Shri Tarun Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that the enquiry in the present matter was held ill a just and proper manner strictly in conformity with Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The petitioner was after issue of the charge sheet provided with all the demanded documents and that if the petitioner wanted he could have got summoned any other document. He did not requisition any such document and, therefore, mere non-consideration of leave application submitted by the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer did not cause any prejudice to him. The Disciplinary Authority has dealt with all the issues objectively and keeping in view length of service rendered by the petitioner and his age, decided to take a lenient view by inflicting upon him the penalty of compulsory retirement, because in that penalty, he would not be deprived of his retiral benefits. The appellate authority has also passed a reasonable and speaking order considering all the arguments raised by the petitioner. Even his revision petition was also dismissed by the revisional authority. This Court therefore ought not to make any interference in the matter. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and examined the material on record. 7. A perusal of the charge-sheet indeed shows that the charge against petitioner was that he remained absent without any intimation to the competent authority, whereas in the statement of allegations itself, a detailed narration and reference is made about number of applications which the petitioner sent to competent authority, which were all accompanied by medical certificates issued in each spell for a period of fortnight. Such applications were dated 6.6.94, 5.7.94, 19.7.94, 5.8.94, 19.8.94, 2.9.94 and 16.9.91. The petitioner was shown to have ultimately resumed the duties on Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. Union of India & Drs. (Rafiq, J.) 3163 28.9. 1994 and at that time he produced a medical certificate issued by the Divisional Medical Officer, Reengus dated 27.9.1994. In this fitness certificate, the Divisional Medical Officer has noted that the petitioner remained under treatment of private Doctor for the period from 6.4.1994 to 27.9.1994, which shall be decided by the competent authority. (Rafiq, J.) 3163 28.9. 1994 and at that time he produced a medical certificate issued by the Divisional Medical Officer, Reengus dated 27.9.1994. In this fitness certificate, the Divisional Medical Officer has noted that the petitioner remained under treatment of private Doctor for the period from 6.4.1994 to 27.9.1994, which shall be decided by the competent authority. This was actually so because under the Rules when an employee applies for grant of leave on medical ground or otherwise, the competent authority has to take a particular decision on such application. It cannot be that he does not decide the application and yet would proceed in disciplinary action against the employee. Even if the argument that the charge was of absence without intimation and not for willful absence is ignored, the fact remains that the applications submitted by the petitioner for medical leave, each of which were accompanied by medical certificate, remained undecided, this was at least so that petitioner had some explanation to give about his absence for such a length of period. Those applications were referred to in the charge-sheet, albeit in the portion pertaining to statement of allegations, yet the documents referred to therein were not forwarded to the Enquiry Officer and when this issue was agitated by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, he remained contended by merely observing that this issue did not concern him and therefore, did not require his comments. The Enquiry Officer performs quasi judicial function and he has to in his conduct reflect some resemblance of impartiality. Even he though may have been assigned that task by the disciplinary Authority or its department but nevertheless, he is expected to act in an even handed manner and objectively consider all the material produced and submissions made, before him either by the department or by the delinquent. 8. In Mohd. Akhter Ali (supra) the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dealing with a case where the delinquent was proceeded against in disciplinary action for absence of 1 month and 24 days and when he appeared he produced the medical certificate. It was held that the action of the management to treat the absence of the delinquent from duty as absconding only when he applied for condonation of his absence with request to join the duty was wholly unacceptable because the management never disbelieved the version of the delinquent that he suddenly fell ill and hospitalised. It was held that the action of the management to treat the absence of the delinquent from duty as absconding only when he applied for condonation of his absence with request to join the duty was wholly unacceptable because the management never disbelieved the version of the delinquent that he suddenly fell ill and hospitalised. 9. In Avadh Behari Panchauri (supra) a somewhat similar issued crept up before this Court where the delinquent produced medical certificate. No view was taken thereabout by the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer disbelieved them without assigning any reason. This Court held that absence attributable to sickness could not be said to be willful absence and set aside the order of dismissal. 10. Ram Singh (supra) was a case pertaining to Railway Protection Force. Charge against him was regarding absence of delinquent for more than 110 days beyond the sanctioned leave of 10 days during suspension of petitioner. Absence was attributed to the fact that his wife was ill. The delinquent produced sickness certificates of his wife and sought to explain his absence thereby. This Court held that the Enquiry Officer as also the Disciplinary Authority, committed an error apparent on the face of record in discarding those certificates without believing on the sickness certificates, therefore, the punishment order was set aside with consequential benefits with 50% back wages. 11. In Anil Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court held that Enquiry Officer being a quasi judicial authority has to act in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It was held that the Enquiry Officer did not apply its mind to the findings and he merely recorded his ipse dixit that the charges are proved. The report must be reasoned one. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Prakash Kumar Tandon (supra). 12. As regards the second charge about not vacating of the railway quarter despite being required, the explanation of the petitioner in the first place was that he himself did not acquire the quarter, but his wife did so. Even if that is not accepted, the fact is that under the notice issued by the Divisional Security Commissioner, the petitioner was required to vacate the quarter within seven days and he eventually vacated the said quarter within twenty days. Yet the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority concluded that the petitioner disobeyed the direction of superior authority. Even if that is not accepted, the fact is that under the notice issued by the Divisional Security Commissioner, the petitioner was required to vacate the quarter within seven days and he eventually vacated the said quarter within twenty days. Yet the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority concluded that the petitioner disobeyed the direction of superior authority. If eventually the orders are complied with though with delay, it cannot be said that the gravity of the charge against the petitioner was such as would justify his compulsory retirement on that basis. However, the enquiry report and the order of penalty in so far as the charge on the ground of willful absence which in the charge-sheet incidentally was only for absence without intimation, it cannot be sustained. However, for a minor charge of vacating the quarter with somewhat delay, penalty of compulsory retirement cannot be justified. In order to balance the equities, however, petitioner can be denied actual benefits for the intervening period. 13. The impugned order of penalty in the circumstances of the case, cannot be sustained in law. The order of Disciplinary Authority and that of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority are set aside. Now that the petitioner, who was 56 years of age when the writ petition was filed in 1997 is 69 years of age when the present petition is being decided, the respondents cannot be given liberty to hold any de-novo enquiry against the petitioner but at the same time the fact is that petitioner was merely awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement and that within six years of award of such penalty, he would have otherwise also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, no such liberty need be given to the respondents. However, at the same time, it is directed that petitioner shall not be entitled to any actual benefits for the intervening period from the date of his compulsory retirement till the date of superannaution. Although, for all other purposes including for grant of pension and other retiral dues etc. he would be deemed have continued in service throughout till he otherwise attained the age of superannuation and on that basis he shall be paid the differential amount of the retiral dues and pension together with interest @ 6% per annum. Although, for all other purposes including for grant of pension and other retiral dues etc. he would be deemed have continued in service throughout till he otherwise attained the age of superannuation and on that basis he shall be paid the differential amount of the retiral dues and pension together with interest @ 6% per annum. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents.