ORDER : Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J. 1. The order dated 31-7-2012 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No. 3236 of 2003 is called in question in this writ petition. Respondent's husband namely Sri Chowdappa who was working as Village Accountant at Chatnahalli Circle, Honnali Taluk was dismissed from service on certain allegations of misappropriation of money and dereliction of duty. Enquiry was held and thereafter he was dismissed from service. However, the ex-employee Sri Chowdappa did not question the order of dismissal till the year 1989. He choose to file the appeal before the Appropriate Authority questioning the order of dismissal in the year 1984, which came to be dismissed on 7-11-1989 on the ground of delay and laches. Thereafter, he filed review petition which also came to be dismissed as per the communication dated 28-9-2002. Subsequently, it seems, he had even approached His Excellency, Governor of Karnataka but no order was passed in his favour. He expired on 11-6-2001. If he was to be on duty, he would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-5-1999. Respondent 1 being the wife of deceased Chowdappa, approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 3236 of 2003 questioning the order of dismissal as well as the order of the Appellate Authority and the order of review petition. The Tribunal by order dated 31-7-2012, allowed the Application No. 3236 of 2003 with the following conclusion: "10. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The order of dismissal of Sri Chowdappa passed by the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, in No. EST(2) CA. 54/80-81, dated 17-11-1982 is quashed. All consequential benefits admissible as per rules, arising out of the quashing of the order of dismissal shall be granted to the applicant Smt. Lakshmamma by the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 2. The State Government has questioned the order of Tribunal insofar as it relates to grant of back wages is concerned is before this Court. 3. The records maintained by the Department reveal that the enquiry was not held by the Enquiry Officer as contemplated under Rule 11(14) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The State Government has questioned the order of Tribunal insofar as it relates to grant of back wages is concerned is before this Court. 3. The records maintained by the Department reveal that the enquiry was not held by the Enquiry Officer as contemplated under Rule 11(14) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. In that regard, the Tribunal is justified in observing that the Enquiry Officer while proceeding with the enquiry has conducted in a very casual manner. 4. One of the charges against Sri Chowdappa is that he misappropriated a sum of Rs.315.91/-. In his reply to the charge memo, he stated that the said sum of Rs.315.91/- has been credited to the Bank and that the documents in that regard may be verified at the Taluka Office. Despite the same, the Enquiry Officer has not recorded any evidence by examining the concerned officials or by admitting the relevant documents in evidence. In respect of other charges, no evidence seems to have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Merely on the say of the officials of the Department, it seems the Enquiry Officer has concluded against the Chowdappa. Consequently, the Tribunal is justified in concluding that the enquiry was hit by the principles of natural justice inasmuch as, all the documents were not brought on record. Consequent upon which, Sri Chowdappa did not have an opportunity to defend himself. In view of the same, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of dismissal by assigning valid reasons for coming to the conclusion. However, in our considered opinion that the Tribunal may not be justified in awarding the back wages for the entire period i.e. from the date of dismissal of the employee till the date of his retirement inasmuch as, late Sri Chowdappa was fault in not approaching the authority within a reasonable period. We have already clarified that the order of dismissal was on 17-11-1982. He approached the Appellate Authority only in the year 1989 by filing the appeal which came to be dismissed on 7-11-1989. However, he subsequently approached the higher authorities without getting any benefit. In that view of the matter, the respondent may not be entitled for back wages for the delayed period from 1982-1989. He approached the Appellate Authority only in the year 1989 by filing the appeal which came to be dismissed on 7-11-1989. However, he subsequently approached the higher authorities without getting any benefit. In that view of the matter, the respondent may not be entitled for back wages for the delayed period from 1982-1989. In rest of the period from 7-11-1989 to the date or his retirement, the back wages shall nave to be paid to the respondent-wife. The petitioner is also entitled to other consequential benefits as per law. Accordingly, the following: ORDER "(i) The order passed by the Tribunal dated 31-7-2012 in Application No. 3236 of 2013 stands confirmed. (ii) However, the respondent is not entitled for back wages from 17-11-1982 to 7-11-1989. She is entitled for the back wages from 7-11-1989 till the date of retirement of Sri Chowdappa i.e. till 31-5-1999. In addition thereto, the respondent is also entitled to all other consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits as per law." With the aforementioned modifications, writ petition is disposed of.