JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, an Ex-Constable/G.D. Force No. 065027703, B/12 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, has filed this petition seeking to quash the order dated 08.11.2011 passed by Disciplinary Authority vide Anneuxre-3, imposing punishment of removal from service, the order dated 19.06.2012 passed by Appellate Authority vide Annexure-4 confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by Revisional Authority vide Annexure-5, confirming such punishment and rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner, the order dated 02.06.2013 passed by the next superior authority Addl. DG in Annexure-6, confirming the order of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, revisional authority and finally the order dated 13.02.2014 in Annexure-7, confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, revisional authority and the next superior authority, rejecting application filed by the petitioner and further seeking for a direction to opposite parties to reinstate him in his service w.e.f. 08.11.2011 and for granting all the consequential service benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner joined in the Indian Army being enrolled as RECT on 17.03.1987. By the time he joined in army, he had acquired the qualification of matriculation, but subsequently, he acquired B.A. III year qualification. While in service, he had rendered unblemished service of 16 years 9 months and 15 days and also got 9 years long service medal, 50th year anniversary medal for his service rendered to the Army and finally he was released on 30.12.2003 (A/N) by the order of the E.M.E.(R) dated 02.07.2003 and became an "ex-serviceman" having served as REC (Mech.) Class-III Trade and his character was assessed at the time of retirement as very good and he has been issued with testimonial for Civil employment of Appendix-"A" to AO 136/73 where he has been given an endorsement with attributes in respect of his character and personality record for the purpose of his suitability for civil employment as he is a hard working individual having intelligence, reliable, keen and energetic with initiative and sense of responsibility as very good and organization ability as he has good knowledge in the trade work. Pursuant to advertisement issued by the Central Reserve Police Force, the petitioner applied for recruitment as constable/GD in the ex-servicemen category and having been found suitable, he was enlisted as constable/GD on 01.05.2006 for Group Centre, CRPF, Padia Purana Hawai Adda Phaphamanu, Allahabad (UP). After completion of basic training, he was transferred from Allahabad (UP) on 17.06.2007 to Ranga Reddy Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) in 184 Bn CRPF and was directed to report to the unit on 17.08.2007. The petitioner went on leave on 30.09.2007 for 60 days and reported on 02.12.2007. On 07.12.2007, he was sent to 184th Bn CRPF, Sundarban, Jammu for clearance and returned on 28.12.2007 from there in 12tth Bn CRPF. On 20.11.2007 the petitioner requested his commandant for release of salary of four months, which was due. Thereafter, the Commandant also stated that the petitioner may approach anywhere and sent his letters/applications for his salary. Due to non-release of salary, the petitioner approached the higher authorities time and again but instead of looking into the grievance, the opposite parties initiated a proceeding on the allegation of commission of an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (in short "1949 Act") on the allegation that the petitioner was in the habit of finding fault on each and every matter, insubordination, and disobeying the lawful orders of seniors, creating nuisance in his daily routine duties and frequently sending complaint/petitions on flimsy grounds even to higher authorities of the Force as well as to the senior Civil dignitaries directly bypassing proper channel bringing disrespect to the Force. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed by Coy Commander as well as Unit Commandant to take interest in his duties and to avoid making direct correspondence with higher authorities and to bring his grievance, if any, to the authorities concerned through proper channel only. Thereafter, pursuant to letter dated 03.11.2010 a preliminary inquiry was ordered by the DIGP(Welfare), Directorate General CRPF, New Delhi on the basis of a complaint dated 02.11.2010 addressed to Her Excellency the President of India submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, enquiry was conducted by Sri Vimal Chand Dwivedi, A/C of 12 Bn, CRPF to find out the circumstances under which an allegation/prima facie case is established or otherwise. Accordingly, enquiry was conducted by Sri Vimal Chand Dwivedi, A/C of 12 Bn, CRPF to find out the circumstances under which an allegation/prima facie case is established or otherwise. The inquiry Officer on the basis of preliminary inquiry stated that prima facie case against the petitioner was established and same was communicated to higher authorities. Consequently, the higher authorities had directed on 09.04.2011 to Commandant 12 Bn CRPF to initiate Departmental Inquiry. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority initiated a Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner by serving a memorandum/Article of charges on 31.05.2011. The charges levelled against the petitioner read as follows: "Item-I Ex- Force No. 065027703 C.T/G.D Sharad Chandra Pathak 12th Bn. during being employed at constable post during his duty period, under C.R.P.F Rules 1949 section 11(1) as a member of force was in habit of sending unimportant letters to main Court and other civil courts without following proper channel, which is against the law and discipline of the force and is punishable offence. Item-II That till the aforesaid period employed in the aforesaid office Ex- Force No. 065027703 C.T/G.D Sharad Chandra Pathak 12th Bn. has imposed wrong and baseless blames on the officers of C.R.P.F. petitioner (Sharad Chandra Pathak) was presented before second commanding officer Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh due to the absence of commandant on 27.01.2009. And as petitioner started stating about his problems, ill-treatment and harassment done with him on 28.12.2007, second commanding officer Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh got angry as he heard that he was also blamed by the petitioner for ill-treatment and harassment done with him, and beaten the petitioner breaking his tooth which is against the law and discipline of the force and is a punishable offence. Item-III That till the aforesaid period employed in the aforesaid office Ex- Force No. 065027703 C.T/G.D Sharad Chandra Pathak 12th Bn. has blamed that on 28.12.2007 he was beaten up with sticks in front of 12th Bn. main gate after returning from his leave by some men and it was said that this is done on the instruction of old commandant and as a punishment you are transferred to 12th Battalion which is against the law and discipline of C.R.P.F. and is punishable offence. Item-IV That till the aforesaid period employed in the aforesaid office Ex- Force No. 065027703 C.T/G.D Sharad Chandra Pathak 12th Bn. Item-IV That till the aforesaid period employed in the aforesaid office Ex- Force No. 065027703 C.T/G.D Sharad Chandra Pathak 12th Bn. Has always been writing wrong letters against officers which creates a bad impact on the image of Force. Also he used to spread matters to degrade C.R.P.F., which is being a member of C.R.P.F. is disobedience of orders. Item-V That till the aforesaid period employed in the aforesaid office Ex- Force No. 065027703 C.T/G.D Sharad Chandra Pathak 12th Bn. for violation of proper channel was sent a letter P/08/2011 by the medium of company commander on 28.04.2011 which was not accepted by office Ex- Force No. 065027703 C.T/G.D Sharad Chandra Pathak 12th Bn., which is being a member of C.R.P.F. is disobedience of orders." On the basis of the charge framed by the Disciplinary Authority on 31.05.2011, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation, but the petitioner was on 14 days casual leave w.e.f. 30.05.2011 to 14.06.2011 with a permission to avail 24.05.2011, 05.06.2011 and 12.06.2011 being Sunday but he overstayed the leave w.e.f. 15.06.2011 to 13.07.2011 without prior intimation/permission/sanction of leave from the competent authority as a result of which memorandum/article of charges could not be served on the petitioner at that time. The said memorandum/article of charges was sent to the petitioner at his home address by Registered post on 17.06.2011. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 16108 of 2011 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 21.06.2011 with a direction to opposite party to consider the representation in Annexures- 5 and 6 and to take a decision thereon within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. Subsequently, after return of the petitioner from leave, Shri R.S. Rajesh Kumar, A/C of the Unit was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the Departmental Inquiry pursuant to order dated 15.07.2011. The enquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report. But without any basis the Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of "removal from service" w.e.f. 08.11.2011 vide Annexure-3. Being aggrieved by the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 15.11.2011 to the appellate authority which was rejected being devoid of merit, vide Annexure-4. But without any basis the Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of "removal from service" w.e.f. 08.11.2011 vide Annexure-3. Being aggrieved by the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 15.11.2011 to the appellate authority which was rejected being devoid of merit, vide Annexure-4. Being not satisfied with the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a revision on 11.08.2012 which was also rejected being devoid of merit on 17.12.2012, vide Annexure-5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority, the petitioner preferred the instant petition to the Special D.G., CRPF, CZ Kolkata, West Bengal, but the same was also rejected being devoid of merit on 02.06.2013, vide Annexure-6. Being aggrieved by the rejection order passed on the instant application, the petitioner preferred an objection on 03.07.2013 to D.G., CRPF, New Delhi which was also rejected being devoid of merit vide order dated 13.02.2014 in Annexure-7. Against the order of rejection of his petition dated 13.02.2014 by the D.G., CRPF, New Delhi, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 4882 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 4941 of 2014 before the High Court of Allahabad. In course of hearing since the petitioner had not disclosed the filing of first writ petition in his second writ petition, the said Court dismissed the writ petition on 06.02.2014 by awarding cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- to the Advocate of the petitioner for non-disclosure of the first writ petition. The petitioner filed review/recall application of the order dated 06.02.2014, which was also rejected by order dated 21.03.2014. The petitioner filed a petition before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the order dated 06.12.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 4882 of 2014. The said High Court dismissed the same on 22.04.2014 due to lack of territorial jurisdiction and further directed that the petitioner may approach the High Court of Orissa, Calcutta or Delhi High Court. Accordingly, he preferred W.P. No. 20199 of 2014 before the High Court of Calcutta, which was also dismissed as High Court of Calcutta lacked jurisdiction. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. Accordingly, he preferred W.P. No. 20199 of 2014 before the High Court of Calcutta, which was also dismissed as High Court of Calcutta lacked jurisdiction. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. Sharad Chandra Pathak, petitioner appeared in person and argued the matter that the order passed in Annexures, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are outcome of non-application of mind, non-compliance of principle of natural justice and the authorities are prejudiced against him because he had approached the higher authorities and Her excellency, the President of India for consideration of his grievance. He further submitted that the authorities are vindictive against him and without making prior inquiry and without following due procedure of law as envisaged under the CRPF Act and Rules framed thereunder, the impugned punishment has been imposed against him which cannot be sustained in the eye of law as the same has been passed without complying the principle of natural justice. It is further urged that while he was discharging the duties under the 12th BN, CRPF and continuing under the territory of State of Orissa, the impugned order has been served on him. Therefore, a part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this application. 4. Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India argued with vehemence that there is a concurrent finding of fact with regard to imposition of penalty of removal from service passed by the authorities under the law. There is limited scope that though power of this Court to discharge in a judicial review to interfere with the findings arrived at by the authorities, such findings should not be disturbed as the same are passed by following due procedure of law. The Force being a disciplined organization, continuance of the petitioner will cause great prejudice to the organization and therefore, the orders impugned having been passed in compliance to the provisions of law, this Court may not interfere with the same. 5. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, the moot questions that arise for consideration are: "(i) Whether the punishment has been imposed against the petitioner by following due procedure of law? (ii) If not, to what relief?" 6. Issue Nos. 5. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, the moot questions that arise for consideration are: "(i) Whether the punishment has been imposed against the petitioner by following due procedure of law? (ii) If not, to what relief?" 6. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 In order to provide for the constitution and regulation of an Armed Central Reserve Police Force, law has been enacted as "Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. To achieve the aims and objects of the Act, in exercise of power conferred under Section 18 of the Act, power has been vested to frame Rules, Accordingly, Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 has been framed by the Central Government. Section 2(c) of the 1949 Act defines "the Force" to mean the Central Reserve Police Force. Section 2(d) of the 1949 Act defines "member of the Force" means a person who has been appointed to the Force by the Commandant, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and in sections 1, 3, 6, 7, 16, 18, 18 and 19, includes also a person appointed to the Force by the Central Government, whether before or after such commencement. Section 3 of the 1949 Act deals with constitution of the Force, Section 4 states about appointment and power of superior officers, Section 5 deals with enrolment. In view of the provisions contained under 1949 Act, petitioner was enrolled as a member of the Force by following due procedure of selection conducted by the competent authority. If any act contrary to the provision of law is to be done by a member of the Force, then he is subjected to a proceeding as contemplated under the Act and also liable for punishment for commission of such offence enshrined under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Section 9 of the 1949 Act deals with more heinous offences, whereas Section 10 deals with less heinous offences, Section 11 deals with minor punishments. Section 9 of the 1949 Act deals with more heinous offences, whereas Section 10 deals with less heinous offences, Section 11 deals with minor punishments. Under the said provision the Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the punishments mentioned therein to any member of the Force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force. 7. Chapter-VI of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in short "1955 Rules") deals with discipline. Rule-27 envisages procedure for the award of punishments. As per Rule 27(b) when non-gazetted officers or men of the various ranks are to be punished for any offence, a departmental enquiry, if necessary under Clause (a) shall be held by the Commandant provided that when the Charge is against an officer of the rank of Subedar (Inspector) or Sub-inspector the enquiry shall be held by an authority to be designated for the purpose by the Deputy Inspector General. Under Rule 27(c) the procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry has been elaborately dealt with. On perusal of the provision under Rule 27(c) it is seen that the same has to be followed with letter and spirit. Rule 28 deals with appeal whereas Rule 29 deals with Revision and says that the procedure prescribed for appeals shall also apply to revisions. Rule 30 deals with petitions. This being the statutory provision governing the field, the petitioner's case has to be considered in the light of the law governing the field as mentioned above. 8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the authority on the allegation of physical assault on him and consequential inaction of the authority on the complaint being lodged by him, made application to cause an inquiry and pass appropriate order on that score. Since no action was taken by the Commandant, he sought for personal interview but the same was not granted to him. He asked for the said legitimate dues of four months salary and for some reason or other, benefits have not been extended to him. Since no action was taken by the Commandant, he sought for personal interview but the same was not granted to him. He asked for the said legitimate dues of four months salary and for some reason or other, benefits have not been extended to him. That apart, while he was continuing with illness, the doctor advised him to take rest but the same was denied by the authority. Therefore, the petitioner made a grievance before the higher authorities. The same having not been acceded to, he sought permission to meet personally the authority but the same having been denied, he is being grossly prejudiced. Without realizing the real plight of a low paid employee in the Force, the authority initiated the proceeding against him by framing charges as mentioned in Annexure-1, to which he has submitted his reply and intimated the fact that he is being harassed for no reasons though track record of the petitioner while serving in Indian Army was clean. He having rendered 15 years of service in a disciplined organization, it cannot be presumed that he does not know the minimum sense of responsibility assigned to him but as it appears from the factual backdrop of the case in hand, the authorities who have been vested with the power to maintain discipline in the Force if will not look into the grievance of the subordinate employees by granting minimum requirement, it will definitely cause prejudice to such employees. There is no doubt that being a member of the Force one has to observe strict discipline as provided under law. On the factual backdrop of the case, in hand, if an employee has grievance with regard to release of salary and travel expenses and if the same has not been considered in proper prospective, he must have genuine grievance for the said purpose and reasons of physical assault having been enquired by deforming the petitioner, due to such assault who is under medical treatment and without allowing him to grant leave, for such treatment that itself caused gross prejudice to the petitioner. As it appears that the inquiry has been conducted without following due procedure of law. As it appears that the inquiry has been conducted without following due procedure of law. More particularly there is violation of sub Rules (2), (3) & (4) of the Rule 27(c) of 1955 Rules in that no evidence which are to be relied on to establish the charge have been supplied to the petitioner nor he has been given an opportunity to inspect such documents which have been relied upon in support of the charge, and is required to be put as exhibits before he is called upon to make his defence. As it appears, during inquiry, the procedure envisaged in the aforesaid Rule 27(c)(2)(3)(4) have not been followed by the inquiry officer. As such, the inquiry has been conducted in a prejudiced manner against the petitioner without affording due opportunity of hearing to him. A finding has been recorded that the petitioner is in habit of approaching higher authorities causing harm and reputation to the force but while giving such finding, the authority should have taken into consideration the mental condition of the person whose grievance has not been meted out in spite of repeated approach to the authority. When his grievance was not meted out by the immediate authority, he had no other alternative than to bring it to the notice of the higher authority. If a little bit response on the grievance made by the petitioner would have been made by the competent authority, the problem would have been solved. But non-consideration of the grievance in due time caused frustration in the mind of the employee, which has happened in the present case. The inquiry officer who conducted the inquiry appears to have been grossly biased against the petitioner, found the petitioner guilty unilaterally without following due procedure of law and the disciplinary authority without considering the case of the petitioner in proper prospective imposed the punishment of removal from services on the ground of insubordination, misconduct and malpractice done by him in exercise of power conferred under Section 11(1) of the of the 1949 Act and Rule 17 of the 1955 Rules. While imposing such punishment, the disciplinary authority has not given an opportunity to the petitioner, but on consideration of the enquiry report and other documents presented by the inquiry officer as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the order itself imposed such punishment. While imposing such punishment, the disciplinary authority has not given an opportunity to the petitioner, but on consideration of the enquiry report and other documents presented by the inquiry officer as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the order itself imposed such punishment. The disciplinary authority before coming to such a conclusion should have given an adequate opportunity to the petitioner in consonance with the rules governing the field. The appellate authority also in a cryptic order without assigning any reason rejected the appeal under Section 28 of the 1955 Rules so also the Revisional authority rejected the claim made by the petitioner in Annexure-5. The instant application was considered by the authority, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and the same has been rejected on the basis of the materials placed before him vide Annexure-6. Similarly, the petition filed by the petitioner before opposite party No. 1 has also been rejected by opposite party No. 1 vide Annexure-7 without following due procedure of law as envisaged under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the provisions as envisaged under the 1949 Act and 1955 Rules so far as conduct of inquiry is concerned i.e. Rule 27(c)(2)(3)(4) of the 1955 Rules, have not been followed inasmuch as there is non-compliance of principle of natural justice. 9. In Dr Rash Lal Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Others, at page277, it is held that the rules of natural justice supplement the enacted law and do not supplant it. While observing so it has been elaborately explained as follows: "The concept of natural justice is not a static one but is an ever expanding concept. In the initial stages it was thought that it had only two elements, namely, (i) no one shall be a judge in his own cause and (ii) no one shall be condemned unheard. With the passage of time a third element was introduced, namely, of procedural reasonableness because the main objective of the requirement of rule of natural justice is to promote justice and prevent its miscarriage. Therefore, when the legislature confers power in the State Government to be exercised in certain circumstances or eventualities, it would be right to presume that the legislature intends that the said power be exercised in the manner envisaged by the statute. Therefore, when the legislature confers power in the State Government to be exercised in certain circumstances or eventualities, it would be right to presume that the legislature intends that the said power be exercised in the manner envisaged by the statute. If the statute confers drastic powers it goes without saying that such powers must be exercised in a proper and fair manner. Drastic substantive laws can be suffered only if they are fairly and reasonably applied. In order to ensure fair and reasonable application of such laws courts have, over a period of time, devised rules of fair procedure to avoid arbitrary exercise of such powers. True it is, the rules of natural justice operate as checks on the freedom of administrative action and often prove time-consuming but that is the price one has to pay to ensure fairness in administrative action. And this fairness can be ensured by adherence to the expanded notion of rule of natural justice. Therefore, where a statute confers wide powers on an administrative authority coupled with wide discretion, the possibility of its arbitrary use can be controlled or checked by insisting on their being exercised in a manner which can be said to be procedurally fair. Rules of natural justice are, therefore, devised for ensuring fairness and promoting satisfactory decision-making. Where the statute is silent and a contrary intention cannot be implied the requirement of the applicability of the rule of natural justice is read into it to ensure fairness and to protect the action from the charge of arbitrariness. Natural justice has thus secured a foothold to supplement enacted law by operating as an implied mandatory requirement thereby protecting it from the vice of arbitrariness. Courts presume this requirement in all its width as implied unless the enactment supplies indications to the contrary as in the present case. This Court in A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, after referring to the observations in State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Others, observed as under : (SCC p. 272, para 20) "The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it." 10. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it." 10. In D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. the apex Court held that the principle of natural justice have been unequivocally declared by the Supreme Court to be a constituent feature of Article 14 . Natural justice is antithesis of arbitrariness. 11. In Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University and Others the apex Court held since non-arbitrariness is an essential facet of Article-14, it follows that audi alteram partem is a requirement of Article 14 . 12. In State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. S.K. Sharma, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, after an elaborate discussion has summarized the position in relation to disciplinary proceeding as follows: "We may summaries the principles emerging from the above discussion. (These are by no means intended to be exhaustive and are evolved keeping in view the context of disciplinary enquiries and orders of punishment imposed by an employer upon the employee) : (1) An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in violation of the rules/regulations/statutory provisions governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically. The Court or the Tribunal should enquire whether (a) the provision violated is of a substantive nature or (b) whether it is procedural in character. (2) A substantive provision has normally to be complied with as explained hereinbefore and the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice would not be applicable in such a case. (3) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, the position is this : procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under 'no notice', 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. Except cases falling under 'no notice', 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. In this connection, it may be remembered that there may be certain procedural provisions which are of a fundamental character, whose violation is by itself proof of prejudice. The Court may not insist on proof of prejudice in such cases. As explained in the body of the judgment, take a case where there is a provision expressly providing that after the evidence of the employer/government is over, the employee shall be given an opportunity to lead defence in his evidence, and in a given case, the enquiry officer does not give that opportunity in spite of the delinquent officer/employee asking for it. The prejudice is self-evident. No proof of prejudice as such need be called for in such a case. To repeat, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., whether the person has received a fair hearing considering all things. Now, this very aspect can also be looked at from the point of view of directory and mandatory provisions, if one is so inclined. The principle stated under (4) hereinbelow is only another way of looking at the same aspect as is dealt with herein and not a different or distinct principle. (4)(a) In the case of a procedural provision which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined from the standpoint of substantial compliance. Be that as it may, the order passed in violation of such a provision can be set aside only where such violation has occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee. (b) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, which is of a mandatory character, it has to be ascertained whether the provision is conceived in the interest of the person proceeded against or in public interest. (b) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, which is of a mandatory character, it has to be ascertained whether the provision is conceived in the interest of the person proceeded against or in public interest. If it is found to be the former, then it must be seen whether the delinquent officer has waived the said requirement, either expressly or by his conduct. If he is found to have waived if, then the order of punishment cannot be set aside on the ground of said violation. If, on the other hand, it is found that the delinquent officer/employee has not waived it or that the provision could not be waived by him, then the Court or Tribunal should make appropriate directions (include the setting aside of the order of punishment), keeping in mind the approach adopted by the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, E.C.I.L., Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar (II). The ultimate test is always the same, viz., test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing, as it may be called. (5) Where the enquiry is not governed by any rules/regulations/statutory provisions and the only obligation is to observe the principles of natural justice -or, for that matter, wherever such principles are held to be implied by the very nature and impact of the order/action - the Court or the Tribunal should make a distinction between a total violation of natural justice (rule of audi alteram partem) and violation of a facet of the said rule, as explained in the body of the judgment. In other words, a distinction must be made between "no opportunity" and not adequate opportunity, i.e., between "no notice"/"no hearing" and "no fair hearing." (a) In the case of former, the order passed would undoubtedly be invalid (one may call it "void" or a nullity if one chooses to). In such cases, normally, liberty will be reserved for the Authority to take proceedings afresh according to law, i.e., in accordance with the said rule (audi alteram partem). In such cases, normally, liberty will be reserved for the Authority to take proceedings afresh according to law, i.e., in accordance with the said rule (audi alteram partem). (b) But in the latter case, the effect of violation (of a facet of the rule of audi alteram partem) has to be examined from the standpoint of prejudice; in other words, what the Court or Tribunal has to see is whether in the totality of the circumstances, the delinquent officer/employee did or did not have a fair hearing and the orders to be made shall depend upon the answer to the said query. (It is made clear that this principle (No. 5) does not apply in the case of rule against bias, the test in which behalf are laid down elsewhere.) (6) While applying the rule of audi alteram partem (the primary principle of natural justice) the Court/Tribunal/Authority must always bear in mind the ultimate and overriding objective underlying the said rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice. It is this objective which should guide them in applying the rule to varying situations that arise before them. (7) There may be situations where the interests of state or public interest may call for a curtailing or the rule of audi alteram partem. In such situations, the Court may have to balance public/State interest with the requirement of natural justice and arrive at an appropriate decision." This Court has also considered the same in Bana Bihari Jena Vs. Commandant, 12 B.N., C.R.P.F.--> . 13. In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon the apex Court has laid down a fair and simple proposition which states that if disciplinary proceedings were not conducted fairly, presumption could be drawn that the same caused prejudice to the charged employee. 14. In view of the aforementioned provisions of law laid down by the apex Court as discussed above, the impugned order of punishment in Annexure-3 and the subsequent orders passed in appeal and revision vide Annexures-4, 5, 6, and 7 are quashed and the opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and grant him all the service benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No orders as to costs. Final Result : Allowed