1. The petitioner, who has already retired on superannuation, has called in question order No. 129 of 2010 dated 05.08.2010, passed by the Dy. Inspec tor General of Police, Traffic, J&K, Srinagar. It was alleged against the petitioner that on 09.01.2010, while he was posted as SO, Dalgate, for regulat ing traffic movement, he issued a challan on a compound form bearing booklet No. 837690 to vehicle No. 4803/JK08-13 and it was alleged that he had not mentioned the fined amount on the form nor had he signed the challan, though he had, allegedly, taken Rs. 500/- from the complainants. On the basis of the complaint, the petitioner was initially placed under suspension and enquiry was ordered to be con ducted. However, Enquiry Officer was changed and enquiry was entrusted to Deputy Director, Prosecution, who sub mitted the findings and disciplinary Authority inflicted the following punish ments on the petitioner: "i) a "Censure" is awarded to the delinquent to serve as corrective; ii) the delinquent officer is reinstated into service with immediate effect; iii) the suspension period w.e.f. 19.01.2010 AN to 04.08.2010 AN shall be treated as Half Pay Leave, for the purpose of regularization as guilt has been estab lished on part of the delinquent; iv) this order shall have no bearing on the outcome of trial (in the criminal case, vide F.I.R. No. 08.2010 u/s 165, 167, 420 RFC etc. of P.S. Ram Munshi Bagh, Srinagar against the delinquent) in the Hon'ble Court of Law and shall not be a bar upon the De partment, to implement the judg ment of the Hon'ble Court. This order consists of two leaves and the enquiry file papers inter link ing correspondence etc. shall form part of this order." 2. The aforementioned details have been taken from the impugned order, which is challenged in this petition on manifold grounds including the one that this is a case of no evidence as the complainants and the witnesses were not examined. 3. In order to ascertain the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner, respondents were directed to produce the record, which is produced by Mr. Magray, learned Sr. AAG. The Enquiry Officer (Deputy Director, Prosecution), Traffic, HQ, J&K, Srinagar has recorded his findings and recommendations as un der: .............The whole prosecution story rest upon the statement of two wit nesses (Bribe givers).
3. In order to ascertain the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner, respondents were directed to produce the record, which is produced by Mr. Magray, learned Sr. AAG. The Enquiry Officer (Deputy Director, Prosecution), Traffic, HQ, J&K, Srinagar has recorded his findings and recommendations as un der: .............The whole prosecution story rest upon the statement of two wit nesses (Bribe givers). Efforts were made during enquiry to secure their presence for recording statements vide this office signal Nos. Estt/Enq/2010/1742-43 dated 15.03.2010, Estt/Enq/2010/2323-24 dated 31.03.2010 and Estt/Enq/2010/2606 dated 12.04.2010, but despite efforts their attendance could not be procured.................. In view of the above stated facts it is recommended that: 1/An annual increment for a pe riod of one year may be "forfeited", from the date it falls due to him; 2/The delinquent officer be rein stated into the service and the period of suspension w.e.f. 19.01.2010 till date be treated as on half pay leave." 4. The very fact that the Enquiry Officer observed that the prosecution story would rest upon the statements of two witnesses (alleged bribe givers), who could not be traced and, thus, their statements could not be recorded, makes it writ large on the. face of the record that this is a case of no evidence and in such circumstances, no recom mendations could have been made for inflicting punishment on the peti tioner. The Disciplinary Authority, without considering the impact of the statement made in the enquiry report, has passed the impugned order. The impugned order, thus, suffers from lack of application of mind. 5. For the above stated reasons, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner: "By issuance of writ of certiorari, im pugned order bearing No. 129 of 2010 dated 05.08.2010, passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Traffic, J&K, Srinagar, (annexure-G), is quashed. As a consequence thereof, respondents are directed to give all service benefits to the petitioner to which he would be entitled, had the impugned order not been passed." 6. Disposed of along with CMPs. Record is returned to Mr. Magray, learned Sr. AAG, in the open Court.