JUDGMENT R. Banumathi, CJ & Amitav K. Gupta, J. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(S) NO.5759 of 2003 whereby the order dated 12th November, 2003 was quashed and the entire departmental proceeding against the respondent/petitioner was also quashed and the appellants/respondents were directed to reinstate the respondent/petitioner in service with all consequential benefits as well as to pay 50% of back wages. 2. The fact of the case is that the respondent/petitioner was appointed on temporary basis by the appellants/respondents on 01.12.1965 at Bhurkunda Colliery and he was regularised as permanent worker on 01.10.1974 and he was granted first time bound promotion from General Mazdoor to Miscellaneous Mazdoor Category-II on 22.07.1986 and the second time bound promotion on 20.06.1991 from Miscellaneous Mazdoor Category-II to E.P. Helper. That the petitioner was served a memo from the Vigilance Officer alleging that he had worked at Bhurkunda Colliery by impersonating a person by the name of Antu, S/o Rijhu Mahto, resident of Gola, Hazaribagh. In the internal enquiry he was asked to produce the relevant documents which he complied and also raised an objection that for more than 25 years he had worked and the appellants/respondents never made any written or oral complaint since the last 25 years. It was because of his activities in the union affairs that the respondent/petitioner has been anguished. It is stated that the Vigilance Office submitted a report dated 04.08.1990 giving the finding that the respondent/petitioner i.e. Shri Antu alias Vijay Prasad Singh, S/o Late Jamuna Singh is the genuine person working at Bhurkunda Colliery and exonerated him of the charges. That the appellants/respondents kept mum till 1996 whereafter the petitioner/respondent was put under suspension by office order dated 09.05.1996 by respondent no.3 i.e. Project Officer, Bhurkunda Colliery asking him to show cause the charges alleging that Shri Antu, S/o Sri Rijhu Mahto was working as casual worker since 1966 who was regularised as permanent worker on 01.10.1974. That in April, 1975, Shri Antu fell ill and went to his native place for treatment and in his place the petitioner started working from 01.12.1975 by impersonating him. It was also stated that the petitioner/respondent's real name is Shri Vijay Singh, S/o Shri Jamuna Singh of village- Dharhara, District- Munger. That in April, 1975, Shri Antu fell ill and went to his native place for treatment and in his place the petitioner started working from 01.12.1975 by impersonating him. It was also stated that the petitioner/respondent's real name is Shri Vijay Singh, S/o Shri Jamuna Singh of village- Dharhara, District- Munger. Accordingly the act of the petitioner constitutes misconduct under Clause 17 of the Standing Order. That the petitioner/respondent filed a reply to the show cause cum charge-sheet and by order dated 17.06.1996 it was informed that Shri S.Mullick, Senior Personnel Officer shall conduct the enquiry. The petitioner/respondent participated in the departmental enquiry whereafter the Enquiry Officer, by letter dated 26.09.1996, submitted the report finding the petitioner/ respondent innocent stating that there is no circumstantial evidence nor documentary proof to show that the petitioner had impersonated Shri Antu, S/o Rijhu Mahto. Accordingly, the charges were found not to be proved. That the respondent no.3 was dissatisfied by the said enquiry and again by letter dated 01.07.1997 ordered further enquiry for the same sort of charges on the ground that relevant facts were not brought out in the enquiry report. Accordingly, a fresh enquiry by one Shri J. Mishra was conducted and the petitioner/respondent co-operated in the fresh enquiry whereafter the Enquiry Officer exonerated him finding that the charges could not be established. That the appellants/respondents remained silent for two years and to harass the petitioner, again by office order dated 31.08.2002 issued show cause notice to him on the ground that he was not satisfied with the report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Vigilance report, without assigning any valid reason for disagreeing with the second enquiry report. The disciplinary authority in the show-cause stated that some security personnel was sent to his native place and has given adverse finding and the petitioner was asked to reply on the same. The petitioner submitted his reply requesting to drop the proceeding as nothing adverse has been found against him and the security personnel has collected the material behind his back and no opportunity of hearing was given to him. It is stated that no information was given to the petitioner, neither the report of the Security Officer was given to the respondent/petitioner which is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. It is stated that no information was given to the petitioner, neither the report of the Security Officer was given to the respondent/petitioner which is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. That the petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the callous approach of the appellants/respondents, filed W.P.(S) NO.5808 of 2002 which was disposed of by order dated 04.09.2003 with observation that the suspension shall be revoked after lapse of two months from the date of receipt of the order but the appellants/respondents did not pass any order with an ulterior motive. It is stated that the appellants/respondents failed to establish the charges and the procedure adopted by them is unknown to service jurisprudence and the petitioner/respondent filed the writ application stating that he had no other efficacious, speedy and alternative remedy than to invoke the writ jurisdiction and prayed for the quashing of the entire proceedings. 3. After hearing the parties, the impugned order was passed in the aforesaid writ application. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration that there is evidence against the respondent/petitioner that he is Vijay Kumar Singh of District-Munger and not Antu, S/o Rijhu Mahto and he had impersonated the said worker. Therefore, the payment of 50% back wages to the petitioner is not tenable and the same is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that if it is found that the respondent/petitioner is a genuine person even then he is not entitled to reinstatement and payment of back wages and the interest of justice will be served if compensation is awarded. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment reported in 2013(4) JBCJ(SC) 253 (Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-division-Kota Vs. Mohan Lal). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner has submitted that from the facts on the record, it is apparent that the appellant no.3 was hell-bent to victimise the respondent/petitioner because as many as three enquiries were conducted; one by the Vigilance Officer and two by the Enquiry Officers viz. Mr. Mallick and Mr. J.Mishra, who submitted their enquiry report by letters dated 04.08.1990, 26.09.1996 and 06.07.1999 exonerating the petitioner of the charges of impersonation finding that the charges were false and frivolous. Mr. Mallick and Mr. J.Mishra, who submitted their enquiry report by letters dated 04.08.1990, 26.09.1996 and 06.07.1999 exonerating the petitioner of the charges of impersonation finding that the charges were false and frivolous. That the appellant no.3, without any justification, again issued the show-cause notice on 31st August, 2002 to the respondent/petitioner on the ground that he was not satisfied with the findings of the Vigilance Officer and the two Enquiry Officers. The petitioner/respondent, in his show cause, explicitly stated that earlier in the three enquiries conducted on the same charges, he was exonerated and therefore, prayed for dropping the proceedings but the appellants/respondents, on the basis of the enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 12th November, 2003 whereby the service of the petitioner/respondent was terminated. That the petitioner realised that he could not get justice from the appellants/respondents, as they were determined to harass him due to the fact that the petitioner was an office-bearer of the Union, accordingly, on the same set of charges, he was repeatedly show caused. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition and the Hon'ble Single Judge has given the finding that the procedure adopted by the appellants/respondents is vexatious. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and after going through the impugned order, we find that the impugned order dated 12.11.2003 was passed on the basis of the departmental proceeding which was in contravention of the principle of natural justice and the learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the two security personnel, who were deputed and sent to the native place of the petitioner for the purpose of enquiry, and on whose statement reliance was placed by the disciplinary authority while recording his findings that the petitioner had impersonated one Antu Singh and the request made by the petitioner/respondent for giving him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was not paid any heed by the appellants/respondents and the denial of fair opportunity of hearing is against the principle of natural justice. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that departmental enquiry is quasi-judicial in nature. Accordingly, the principle of natural justice is required to be observed but the appellants/respondents failed to do so while conducting the enquiry against the petitioner/respondent. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that departmental enquiry is quasi-judicial in nature. Accordingly, the principle of natural justice is required to be observed but the appellants/respondents failed to do so while conducting the enquiry against the petitioner/respondent. The learned Single Judge has also observed that for the same set of charges, the petitioner/respondent was exonerated in the earlier three enquiries and the issuance of the show cause notice for conducting the fourth enquiry by order dated 31.08.2002 can be construed that the appellants/respondents were determined to ensure that the petitioner is removed from the services, therefore, time and again the enquiry was initiated against him. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge quashing Annexure-12-A on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the petitioner/respondent is not entitled to the back wages on the basis of the decision reported in 2013(4) JBCJ(SC) 253, as cited above, is of no help because in the said case, the Apex Court had held that the petitioner had slept over the matter for six years before raising the industrial dispute and accordingly, in the interest of justice, ordered for payment of compensation of Rs.1 lakh in lieu of reinstatement but in the present case, as is evident, the petitioner/respondent, realising that the appellant-management had made up its mind to harass and victimise him, had filed the present writ petition immediately after the impugned order dated 12.11.2003 was passed whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated and there was no delay in seeking redressal of his grievances. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Committee of Management and another Vs. V.C. and others, reported in (2009)2 SCC 630 wherein it was held that alternative efficacious remedy is not an absolute for when the order passed by the authority is in clear contravention/violation of principle of natural justice. 7. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that during the intervening period the petitioner has not actually worked and is not entitled to get the full back wages but is entitled to get 50% of the back wages for the intervening period. The petitioner/respondent has superannuated from service on 31st March, 2012. 7. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that during the intervening period the petitioner has not actually worked and is not entitled to get the full back wages but is entitled to get 50% of the back wages for the intervening period. The petitioner/respondent has superannuated from service on 31st March, 2012. Accordingly, the appellants/respondents are directed to make the payment of 50% of back wages to the respondent/petitioner up to the date of his superannuation and also the consequential benefits including retiral benefits. 8. The impugned order dated 12.11.2003 and the entire departmental proceedings which were ordered to be quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge is affirmed. 9. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, the L.P.A stands dismissed.