JUDGMENT Akhtar Husain Khan, J. – We have heard Sri Satya Narain Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties no.1, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri Rajnish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. Petitioner Dr. Ram Ajor Gupta was a Medical Officer in Uttar Pradesh Provincial Medical Services. He has been terminated from service vide punishment order dated 21.01.2007 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government. Feeling aggrieved with the punishment order passed by Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government he has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers: "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of punishment dated 22.01.2007 (Annexure-1) removing the petitioner from service on the post of Senior Medical Officer, Provincial Medical and Health Services after summoning the record. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including payment of salary and arrears." 3. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 4. In brief, relevant facts as alleged by petitioner are that the petitioner was selected by U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad for appointment to the post of Medical Officer in Provincial Medical Services and joined Provincial Medical Services accordingly. During his service tenure, while he was posted as Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, Jalalpur, District Sitapur, he was suspended vide order dated 23.08.1994 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by Secretary, Medical and Health in contemplation of departmental inquiry. Later on, vide office Memo No.1055(1)/5-13-96 dated 12.03.1996 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) his suspension was revoked and he was transferred to District Hamirpur under Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur where he joined on 01.06.1996. Thereafter, he was served with an undated charge-sheet issued by Enquiry Officer-Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Jhansi Division, Jhansi on 04.01.1997 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) containing charges against him to the effect that during his posting in Primary Health Centre, Rampur District Sitapur, he was absent from duty on various dates unauthoritatively without obtaining permission from competent authority and he was found indulged in private practice at Divya Maternity Heart Centre, 15/9 Indira Nagar, Lucknow. Thereafter, petitioner demanded certain documents from Enquiry Officer through registered letter dated 14.01.1997 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) so that he may file reply against charge-sheet. He further prayed for personal hearing but no reply was received from Enquiry Officer. Petitioner sent reminders also. In the meantime, while working under Chief Medical Officer, Hamipur, petitioner was again suspended vide order dated 22.12.1998 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by Principal Secretary, Medical and Health of Uttar Pradesh Government in contemplation of inquiry on the sole charge of unathorized absence from his duty. Thereafter on 17.04.1999, petitioner was again served with an undated charge-sheet (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) by Enquiry Officer-Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Jhansi Division, Jhansi. Petitioner again sent letter dated 18.04.1999 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) to Enquiry Officer demanding documents relied upon in this second charge-sheet. Later on, petitioner filed his reply through letter dated 22.06.1999 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) to Enquiry Officer regarding first charge-sheet received by him on 04.01.1997 and denied all the charges levelled against him. He further requested for personal hearing. Thereafter on 07.08.1998, he appeared before the Enquiry Officer who asked 11 questions (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) regarding first charge-sheet served on him on 04.01.1997. In the meantime, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1434 (S/B) of 1999 (Dr. Ram Ajore Gupta v. State of U.P. and others) against his suspension order dated 22.12.1998, in which, this Court vide order dated 02.09.1999 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) directed that disciplinary proceedings against petitioner be concluded in accordance with law within a period of three months. Thereafter, petitioner filed his reply before the Enquiry Officer on 09.10.1999 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) regarding second charge-sheet served upon him on 17.04.1999 denying all the charges levelled against him. Thereafter on 16.05.2000 petitioner appeared before Enquiry Officer with regard to second charge-sheet and Enquiry Officer asked 12 questions (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) but the petitioner was not given any personal hearing and in spite of the fact that the petitioner vide letters dated 20.07.2000 and 21.08.2000 (Annexures-15 and 16 to the writ petition respectively) had requested Enquiry Officer to supply documents relied upon in the charge-sheet but he did not receive any information from the Enquiry Officer. Ultimately, on 04.09.2000, petitioner received show cause notice (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) from Secretary, Medical Section-11 Government of Uttar Pradesh disclosing that in above two inquiries initiated against him, inquiry reports have been submitted by Enquiry Officer and all the charges levelled against him in both charge-sheets have been found proved. As such, petitioner was directed to show cause as to why appropriate action may not be taken against him. 5. Petitioner filed reply to show cause notice and requested to furnish copies of inquiry reports but he was not furnished copies of inquiry reports. Later on, State Government revoked his suspension vide order dated 12.12.2000 (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) communicated to petitioner by Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur vide his letter dated 21.12.2000 and in pursuance of said order of U.P. Government, petitioner was transferred in District Sitapur under Chief Medical Officer, Sitapur. Thereafter on 10.09.2000 petitioner was served copy of inquiry report dated 21.06.2000 regarding second charge-sheet through letter dated 31.08.2002 (Annexure-20 to the writ petition) issued by Special Secretary Medical Section-11 of Uttar Pradesh Government and petitioner was required to submit reply within 15 days. Thereafter, petitioner filed his reply through letter dated 18.10.2002 (Annexure-21 to the writ petition) regarding second inquiry. In the meantime, on 27.12.2000, petitioner was furnished copy of inquiry report dated 05.10.1999 regarding first charge-sheet through letter dated 19.12.2002 (Annexure-22 to the writ petition) of Special Secretary, Medical Section-11 Government of U.P. and was required to furnish his reply within 15 days. Petitioner submitted his reply against this inquiry report also vide registered letter dated 14.01.2003 (Annexure-23 to the writ petition). Ultimately on 07.02.2007, petitioner was served with impugned order dated 22.01.2007 passed by Principal Secretary, Medical Section-11 of U.P. Government, whereby, his services have been terminated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order dated 22.01.2007 passed by Principal Secretary, Medical Section-11, Uttar Pradesh Government is arbitrary and illegal as well as without evidence. Petitioner has not been given proper opportunity of hearing and defence. He has not been furnished copies of relevant documents demanded by him. Further he has not been given opportunity of cross-examination also. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that two separate inquiries on substantially similar charges are illegal and untenable. Petitioner has not been given proper opportunity of hearing and defence. He has not been furnished copies of relevant documents demanded by him. Further he has not been given opportunity of cross-examination also. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that two separate inquiries on substantially similar charges are illegal and untenable. He has also contended that composite show cause notice dated 04.09.2000 was issued for both charge-sheets but impugned punishment order dated 22.01.2007 has been passed for second charge-sheet only. Impugned order is illegal on this score also. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred following judicial pronouncements: "(i) Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank and others v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and another; (2012) 11 SCC 244 (ii) Vinod Kumar Koul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others; (2012) 11 SCC 247 (iii) Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; (2010) 10 SCC 539 (iv) G.T. Lad and others v. Chemical and Fibers of India Ltd.; (1979) 1 SCC 590 (v) Mohd. Masaud Alam v. State of Bihar and others; (2012) 4 SCC 144 (vi) Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda and others v. R.S. Thakar; (1988) 1 SCC 638 " 9. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Sri Rajnish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 have contended that inquiry has been conducted in accordance with rules and law. Charge-sheet was served on petitioner. Petitioner filed his reply. Thereafter inquiry was concluded by Enquiry Officer in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to petitioner. After receiving inquiry report, disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to petitioner and furnished him copies of inquiry reports. Thereafter, disciplinary authority has passed impugned punishment order dated 22.01.2007 after consultation with U.P. Public Service Commission. 10. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Sri Rajnish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 have further contended that the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer as well as disciplinary authority are based on evidence and the punishment awarded to petitioner is quite appropriate to the charges levelled against him. There is no sufficient ground to justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have contended that alternative statutory remedy was available to petitioner. There is no sufficient ground to justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have contended that alternative statutory remedy was available to petitioner. Hence, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 12. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel have referred following pronouncements: "(I) Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others; (1993) 4 SCC 727 (II) Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls and others; (2002) 10 SCC 293 (III) U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and another; (2005) 8 SCC 264 (IV) N. Selvaraj v. Kumbakonan City Union Bank of India Ltd. and another; (2006) 9 SCC 172 (V) Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector; (2008) 12 SCC 30 (VI) Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. A. Masilamani; (2013) 6 SCC 530 " 13. We have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 14. First of all, we shall decide issue of maintainability of writ petition raised by opposite parties. 15. In the case of U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and another(Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "....... normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided, the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction." 16. In the above case, Hon'ble Apex Court has further held as follows: "Usually when writ petition is entertained notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy and issues are decided on merits, this Court is slow to interfere merely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. But the facts of the present case have special features, which warrant interference." 17. Present writ petition was filed in year 2007. Now claim petition provided under The U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 is time barred due to efflux of time. Petitioner has now no alternative remedy. But the facts of the present case have special features, which warrant interference." 17. Present writ petition was filed in year 2007. Now claim petition provided under The U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 is time barred due to efflux of time. Petitioner has now no alternative remedy. Order passed in this writ petition was challenged by opposite parties in Civil Appeal No.3570 of 2009 before Hon'ble Supreme Court arising out of SLP (C) No.10017 of 2007 and vide order dated 13.05.2009 passed in said appeal Hon'ble Apex Court has directed this Court to dispose of writ petition expeditiously. 18. In view of above, we are of the view that now writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 19. Perusal of impugned punishment order dated 22.01.2007 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) shows that this punishment order has been passed against petitioner on the basis of inquiry report submitted against him in departmental inquiry contemplated in his suspension order dated 22.12.1998. 20. Relevant part of suspension order dated 22.12.1998 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed against petitioner is extracted below: Mk0 jke vtksj xqRrk] fpfdRlkf/kdkjh] eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh gehjiqj ds v/khu dks ftuds fo: ) fuEufyf[kr vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh izLrkforContemplated gS] ,rn~ }kjk rkRdkfyd izHkko ls fuyfEcr fd;k tkrk gS%& 1- rSukrh ds LFkku ls vuf/kd`r : i ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.kA 2- fuyEcu dh vof/k esa Mk0 jke vtksj xqRrk dks foRrh; fu;e laxzg [k.M&2 Hkkx&2 ls 4 ds ewy fu;e 53 ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj thou fuokZg HkRrksa dh /kujkf'k v/kZ osru ij ns; vodk'k osru dh jkf'k ds cjkcj ns; gksxh rFkk mUgsa thou fuokZg HkRrs dh /kujkf'k ij egaxkbZ HkRrk ;fn vodk'k ij ns; Hkh vuqeU; gksxkA fdUrq ,sls vf/kdkjh dks thou fuokZg ds lkFk dksbZ eagxkbZ HkRrk ns; ugha gksxk ftUgsa fuyEcu ds iwoZ izkIr osru lkFk eagxkbZ HkRrk vFkok egaxkbZ HkRrksa dk mifUrd lek;kstu izkIr ugha FkkA fuyEcu esa fnukad dks izkIr osru ds vk/kkj ij vU; izfrdj HkRrs Hkh fuyEcu dh vof/k esa bl 'krZ ij ns; gksaxs tc bldk lek/kku gks tk;s fd muds n~okjk ml en esa O;; okLro esa fd;k tk jgk gS ftlds fy, izfrdj HkRrk vuqeU; gSA 3- -------- 4- -------- 5- -------- 21. Annexure-8 to the writ petition is the charge-sheet served on petitioner in pursuance of suspension order dated 22.12.1998. Annexure-8 to the writ petition is the charge-sheet served on petitioner in pursuance of suspension order dated 22.12.1998. Relevant part of charge-sheet is extracted below: ^^,rn~nokjk vkidks fuEukuqlkj vkjksfir fd;k tkrk gS %& vkjksi la[;k&1 ;g fd vki vius rSukrh ds LFky eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh gehjiqj ds v/khu ls yEcs le; ls vukf/kd`r : i ls vuqifLFkr py jgs gS rFkk y[kum esa uflZax gkse pyk jgs gSA ;g ,d vuqRrjnkf;Roiw.kZ dk;Z tks vuq'kklughurk dk n~;ksrd gSA jkT; deZpkjh vkpj.k fu;ekoyh ds mYya?ku ds nks"kh gSA lk{; 1- fujh{k.k fjiksVZ fnukad 30-10-1998 2- eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh gehjiqj dk i= fnukad 09-12-1997 vr% vkils vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd bl i= izkIr gksus ds fnukad ls 15 fnu ds vUnj viuk fyf[kr mRrj foospuk fuEu gLrk{kjdrkZ ds le{k izLrqr djsA ;fn vki ,slk djus esa vleFkZ gksaxs rks ;g eku fy;k tk;sxk fd vkidks 'kkldh; lsok ugha djuh gS ,oa bl laca/k esa dqN ugha dguk gSA vkSj mijksDr vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; ys fy;k tk;sxkA** 22. Neither suspension order nor charge-sheet contains dates or period of alleged unauthorised absence of petitioner for which he has faced departmental inquiry. Place of posting where such absence has taken place has also not been mentioned in suspension order and charge-sheet both. Suspension order and charge-sheet both are vague. It is also relevant to mention that in charge-sheet following two documents have been referred as evidence against delinquent employee/ petitioner: 1. Inspection report dated 30.10.1998, and 2. Letter of CMO, Hamirpur dated 19.12.1997. 23. Inspection report dated 30.10.1998 shows that District Hospital, Hamirpur was inspected on 30.10.1998 by Special Secretary, U.P. Government and at the time of inspection, he was informed that Dr. Ram Ajor Gupta petitioner and his wife Dr. Preeti Gupta were posted in District Male and District Female Hospital, Hamirpur respectively. But both are running absent continuously and do not join duty. Indisputably, petitioner was posted at that time at Primary Health Centre, Ruripara, District Hamirpur as medical officer and inspection of Primary Health Centre, Ruripara was not done by said Special Secretary. Therefore, this inspection note is not an evidence against petitioner. It is an evidence against Dr. Preeti Gupta wife of petitioner who was posted at District Hospital Female, Hamirpur at that time. 24. Therefore, this inspection note is not an evidence against petitioner. It is an evidence against Dr. Preeti Gupta wife of petitioner who was posted at District Hospital Female, Hamirpur at that time. 24. In his reply against charge-sheet petitioner has specifically stated that he has not been supplied copy of letter of CMO, Hamirpur dated 19.12.1997 referred in charge-sheet. He has stated that he has been supplied copy of letter of CMS, District Hospital Female, Hamirpur dated 02.12.1997 and this letter is in respect of his wife Dr. Preeti Gupta who was posted in Female Hospital, Hamirpur. In spite of specific demand made by petitioner for copy of letter of CMO, Hamirpur dated 19.12.1997 referred in charge-sheet, petitioner was not furnished copy of said letter nor Enquiry Officer placed reliance on it. Not only this said letter of CMO, Hamirpur dated 19.12.1997 is not available on record of departmental file also which has been produced by learned Standing Counsel before us. In above circumstances, we are compelled to infer that there is no letter of CMO, Hamirpur dated 19.12.1997 and letter of CMO, Hamirpur dated 19.12.1997 referred in charge-sheet is false and fictitious. 25. Except above two documents no other document has been mentioned in charge-sheet as evidence against petitioner. Neither witnesses are named in charge-sheet nor any witness was examined before Enquiry Officer. 26. Conclusion of inquiry report is extracted below: fu"d"kZ c;ku] mRrj o vU; lHkh vfHkys[kksa dks HkyhHkkafr ns[kus ds mijkUr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gS fd M0vkj0,0 xqIrk] fpfdRlkf/kdkjh (fuyfEcr) vfrfjDr izk0Lok0 dsUnz] : jhikjk tuin gehjiqj viuh fM;wVh ls vukf/kd`r : i ls yEcs le; ls vuqifLFkr jgs ,oa izkIr lk{;ksa ds vuqlkj y[kum esa uflZax gkse pykus esa ifr&iRuh fyIr gSA 27. Perusal of inquiry report shows that petitioner has been punished for unauthorised absence from duty during his posting at Primary Health Centre, Ruripara, District Hamirpur and his alleged absence can be divided in four parts: 28. Firstly, it has been alleged that on 31.03.1997, he went to Civil Hospital, Lucknow for training of ultrasound for two months only but he took one month further training at his own will and in certificate filed by him, there was overwriting on the month whereas petitioner has alleged that training was for three months from 31.03.1997 to 30.06.1997 and certificate produced by him is genuine. Inquiry report shows that Enquiry Officer has neither referred any document nor has examined any witness to show as to what was the period of training approved by competent authority. Inquiry report itself shows that Enquiry Officer has sent letter dated 07.02.2000 and letter dated 28.03.2000 to CMS, Shyama Prasad Mukherji, Civil Hospital, Lucknow for verification of certificate submitted by petitioner but no reply has been received. Thereafter Enquiry Officer has made no further inquiry regarding genuineness of certificate filed by petitioner. In such circumstances, there is no sufficient ground to form adverse opinion against certificate filed by petitioner. Conclusion drawn by Enquiry Officer in this respect is without proper inquiry and evidence. 29. Secondly petitioner is reported to be absent from duty since 01.07.1997 to 21.03.1998. In this respect, petitioner has stated in his reply submitted to Enquiry officer that he fell ill on 30.06.1997 at Lucknow and remained continuously ill till 21.03.1998. Therefore, he could not join duty due to illness. Petitioner has stated in his reply to charge-sheet that he has submitted application for leave for said period of absence to Deputy Chief Medical Officer on 06.04.1998 along with certificate of Medical Board, Jhansi and charge certificate but in pursuance of illegal demand, Deputy Chief Medical Officer did not forward his application. He has made several complaints to higher authorities vide letters dated 07.01.1999, 13.01.1999 and 14.11.1999. 30. Inquiry report shows that Enquiry Officer has made no inquiry about application allegedly moved by petitioner for leave nor there is any evidence on record to show that the illness alleged by petitioner was false and petitioner deliberately abstained from duty without sufficient cause. Conclusion drawn for this absence also is without proper inquiry and evidence. 31. Thirdly it is alleged that petitioner remained absent from duty from 25.03.1998 to 25.07.1998 whereas version of petitioner is that he was on duty and has performed his duties in this period. He has sent attendance register in every month to Deputy Chief Medical Officer-III on the basis of which payment of salaries of all employees has been made except him. He has not been paid salaries only because he did not fulfil the demand of bribe. In this context, in inquiry report, it has been mentioned that whenever Chief Medical Officer or Deputy Chief Medical Officer inspected Primary Health Centre, Ruripara, petitioner was found absent and Mr. He has not been paid salaries only because he did not fulfil the demand of bribe. In this context, in inquiry report, it has been mentioned that whenever Chief Medical Officer or Deputy Chief Medical Officer inspected Primary Health Centre, Ruripara, petitioner was found absent and Mr. C.L. Gautam, Pharmacist of Primary Health Centre, Ruripara as well as Village Pradhan of Ruripara have informed that petitioner remains absent. 32. Neither the inspection note of Chief Medical Officer and Deputy Chief Medical Officer have been mentioned in suspension order or charge-sheet (Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition) nor description of these inspection notes has been given in inquiry report. Furthermore, petitioner has not been furnished copies of these inspection reports. Similarly written informations allegedly given by pharmacist and Gram Pradhan have not been referred in suspension order or charge-sheet and description of these informations have not been given in inquiry report. Petitioner has not been furnished copies of these informations also. He has not been given opportunity also to cross-examine these witnesses. 33. For reasons mentioned above, it is apparent that finding recorded by Enquiry Officer for this absence is also without proper inquiry and evidence. 34. Fourthly petitioner is reported absent from 26.07.1998 to 12.11.1998. In this respect version of petitioner is that on 25.07.1998 after having received information from special messenger, he placed application for casual leave in attendance register and made endorsement of casual leave in attendance register. Thereafter, he came to office of Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur but his application was not entertained by offices of Chief Medical Officer and Deputy Chief Medical Officer. Therefore, he came to Lucknow and sent application for leave through UPC. In Lucknow he fell ill and remained under treatment. He had sent information to higher authorities from time to time. Ultimately on 12.11.1998, he went to office of Deputy Chief Medical Officer-III, Hamirpur to join his duties with medical certificate and fitness certificate but he was not permitted to join his duties. 35. In this context, Enquiry Officer has mentioned in inquiry report that petitioner Dr. Gupta has admitted that he had been ill since 25.07.1998 to 12.11.1998 but he has not get sanctioned his leave for this period and has gone after making entry of casual leave himself. This is against Rules. 36. Enquiry Officer has not inquired about genuineness of ailment and medical report of petitioner. Gupta has admitted that he had been ill since 25.07.1998 to 12.11.1998 but he has not get sanctioned his leave for this period and has gone after making entry of casual leave himself. This is against Rules. 36. Enquiry Officer has not inquired about genuineness of ailment and medical report of petitioner. Petitioner was posted at Primary Health Centre. In case of emergency, he might have left station after placing his application for leave on record and making endorsement of casual leave in attendance register in anticipation of sanction of competent authority. Merely on this ground no adverse inference can be drawn against petitioner. 37. For reasons mentioned above, it is apparent that conclusion drawn by Enquiry Officer for this absence is also without proper inquiry and evidence. 38. In inquiry report, Enquiry Officer has mentioned that Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur has informed vide letter dated 3/5.06.1999 that petitioner Dr. Gupta and his wife Dr. Preeti Gupta are involved in private practice at Divya Maternity and Heart Centre, Munshi Ka Puliya, Indra Nagar, Lucknow. Besides certificate given by Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur the fact may be verified by Income Tax Department, Nagar Nigam and Anti Corruption Department. But no report or certificate has been obtained from these departments. 39. Neither letter of Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur dated 3/5.06.1999 has been referred in charge-sheet nor petitioner has been given copy of it at any stage nor petitioner has been given opportunity to cross-examine Chief Medical Officer, without furnishing copy to petitioner and providing opportunity to petitioner to cross-examine Chief Medical Officer said letter of Chief Medical Officer cannot be read against petitioner. 40. In view of above, finding of Enquiry Officer regarding involvement of petitioner in private practice is also without proper inquiry and evidence. 41. For reasons mentioned above, we are of considered opinion that charge-sheet served on petitioner is vague. Petitioner has not been given opportunity of hearing and defence and findings recorded by Enquiry Officer are without proper inquiry and evidence. 42. We have gone through judicial pronouncements referred by the parties. 43. In the case of Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank and others v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and another (Supra), referred by learned counsel for petitioner, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "..... The order passed by the appellate authority is a non-speaking order of dismissal of the appeal unsupported by any reasons. 43. In the case of Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank and others v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and another (Supra), referred by learned counsel for petitioner, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "..... The order passed by the appellate authority is a non-speaking order of dismissal of the appeal unsupported by any reasons. Although the learned counsel for the appellant Bank sought to place on record the reasoned order also, we do not think it is possible to do so at this stage. ...." 44. In the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others(Supra) referred by learned counsel for petitioner, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "16..... Though the technical rules of procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply in a domestic enquiry, however, the principles of nature justice require to be observed strictly. Therefore, the enquiry is to be conducted fairly and reasonably and the enquiry report must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion that the charge framed against the delinquent stood proved against him. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the enquiry officer. Punishment for misconduct can be imposed in consonance with the statutory rules and principles of natural justice. ...." 34. The courts below and the statutory authorities failed to appreciate that if the disciplinary authority wants to consider the past conduct of the employee in imposing a punishment, the delinquent is entitled to notice thereof and generally the charge-sheet should contain such an article or at least he should be informed of the same at the stage of the show cause notice, before imposing the punishment." 45. In the case of G.T. Lad and others v. Chemical and Fibers of India Limited (Supra), referred by learned counsel for petitioner, Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the issue ''as to whether the appellant had voluntarily abandoned the service' and has placed reliance on its earlier judgment rendered in the case of Express Newspapers (P) Limited v. Michael Mark; AIR 1963 SC 1141 , wherein it has been held that "if the employees absent themselves from the work because of strike in enforcement of their demands, there can be no question of abandonment of employment by them. In the present case also the appellants' absence from duty was because of their peaceful strike to enforce their demand." 46. In the present case also the appellants' absence from duty was because of their peaceful strike to enforce their demand." 46. In the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others (Supra), referred by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: ".... Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case...." 47. In the above pronouncement, Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that "It is only if the Court/ Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment." 48. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, it is apparent that charge-sheet served on petitioner is vague and petitioner has not been given opportunity of hearing and defence. It is also apparent that findings recorded by Enquiry Officer are without proper enquiry and evidence. All these circumstances lead us to infer that enquiry report has been prepared in violation of principle of nature justice causing prejudice to petitioner. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that enquiry report dated 21.06.2000 submitted by Enquiry Officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 49. In the case of G.T. Lad and others v. Chemical and Fibers of India Limited (Supra), referred by learned counsel for petitioner, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: " .... The rule in such cases is that where reinstatement has been directed by the Court, the entire back wages must follow as a matter of course. Of course there is a discretion in the Court having regard to special circumstances if any to modify this normal rule. ...." 50. In the case of Mohd. Masaud Alam v. State of Bihar and others (Supra), referred by learned counsel for petitioner, Hon'ble Apex Court has passed following order regarding payment of back wages: ".... We further direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant into service as a constable within three months' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled to back wages from the date of the termination of his service till his reinstatement into service. We further direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant into service as a constable within three months' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled to back wages from the date of the termination of his service till his reinstatement into service. However, the period between the date of termination and the date of reinstatement will be considered for the purpose of computing the qualifying service for payment of the pensionary benefits only. 51. In the case of Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls and others (Supra), referred by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Hon'ble Apex Court has passed following order: "... The termination order already passed will remain, but subject to the result of the fresh consideration as directed above. ....." 52. In the case of N. Selvaraj v. Kumbakonam City Union Bank Limited and another (Supra), referred by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Hon'ble Apex Court has passed following order in respect of payment of back wages: "....... We hold that the payment of back wages, if any, shall be subject to the final outcome of the decision of the disciplinary authority on the basis of the second inquiry report. ...." 53. In the case of Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector (Supra), referred by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on its earlier judgments rendered in the case of U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and another reported in (2005) 8 SCC 264 as well as in the case of ECIL v. B. Karunakar and others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 . 54. Paragraph 26 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Spinning Company Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and another has been referred by Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector (Supra). Same is extracted below: "26. In view of the above, we set aside the order of learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment and direct that within a period of four months the enquiry shall be completed by starting from the stage of service of show-cause notice and consideration of the reply, if any, filed in accordance with the standing orders holding the field. The respondent No. 1 shall be reinstated to service but without any back wages and other service benefits and his reinstatement shall be solely for the purpose of completing the departmental proceedings. His entitlements, if any, would be adjudicated by the authorities depending upon the result of the disciplinary proceedings." 55. In the case of Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector (Supra) placing reliance on its above two earlier judgments Hon'ble Apex Court has drawn conclusion in paragraph 7 of judgment. Same is extracted below: "7. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law indicated in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the course adopted in the two cases above, is to be followed. There shall not be any reinstatement, but the proceedings shall continue from the stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced." 56. In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. A. Masilamani (Supra), referred by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar, Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls, U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu)" 57. As concluded above in present case, enquiry report is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, punishment order passed on the basis of such enquiry report is also not sustainable but considering the nature of charges levelled against petitioner as well as proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in above judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that without passing order of reinstatement of petitioner, the case should be remitted to the disciplinary authority to make a fresh enquiry from the stage of charge and to conclude it within six months from the date of judgment. Payment of back wages as well as other benefits should be subject to final outcome of decision of disciplinary authority on the basis of second enquiry report. 58. Petition is allowed accordingly. Payment of back wages as well as other benefits should be subject to final outcome of decision of disciplinary authority on the basis of second enquiry report. 58. Petition is allowed accordingly. Enquiry report dated 21.06.2000 along with impugned punishment order dated 21.01.2007 passed on the basis of said enquiry report is quashed and case is remitted to opposite parties to make fresh enquiry against petitioner from the stage of charge and to conclude it within six months from the date of judgment. Reinstatement of petitioner as well as payment of back wages and other benefits shall be subject to final outcome of decision of disciplinary authority on the basis of second enquiry report. Petition allowed.