JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order of penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority in Annexure-16, the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner finds place at Annexure-19 and the order passed by the State Cooperative Tribunal deciding the Service Dispute Case No. 14/2005 finds place at Annexure-25. 2. Short background involved in this case is that while the petitioner was working as a Milk Procurement Officer under O.P.2, was issued with an order of suspension, vide Anenxure-3. Consequent upon suspension of the petitioner, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the petitioner was served with memorandum of charges. The petitioner submitted written statement denying the allegations made against him. One P.K. Das, Milk Procurement Officer, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and one B.B. Mohanty, Establishment-in-Charge, was appointed as the Marshalling Officer. It is averred that the petitioner’s request for change of the Enquiry Officer was denied. The documents asked for by the petitioner also have been refused to be supplied with an order of refusal under Annexure-11. The enquiry was concluded in a perfunctory manner ultimately imposing punishment against the petitioner with an order of reversion passed by the Disciplinary Authority to two stages grade and the period of suspension was directed to be treated as such. The petitioner preferred an appeal raising various grounds and it is alleged that the appeal of the petitioner was just dismissed without assigning any reason and holding the punishment awarded against the petitioner is just and proper, consequently, forcing the petitioner to raise a dispute before the Cooperative Tribunal. The dispute before the Tribunal was dismissed by the impugned order under Anexure-25 holding that no illegality has been committed by the Disciplinary Authority in not supplying the enquiry report and further since there is no challenge to the manner of enquiry, the enquiry is found to be fair and proper. 3. Assailing the enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Authority, the appellate order as well as the order passed by the Tribunal in the Dispute Case, Sri J.K. Rath, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner raises the following points:- (i) The application to the Disciplinary Authority for change of Enquiry Officer on specific ground has neither been considered appropriately by the Disciplinary Authority nor the appellate authority. (ii) The petitioner’s request for examination of his witnesses having been turned down, the enquiry becomes bad for non-compliance of reasonable opportunity to defend his case. (iii) Denial of permission for cross-examining the witnesses by the Management and recording of evidence of the departmental witnesses even to the extent of recording the evidence of Marshalling Officer makes the enquiry fatal and the enquiry gets vitiated on this ground alone. (iv) The enquiry also vitiates on account of non-supply of report as well as other vital documents relied upon during enquiry. (v) Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner even though raised all the above in the appeal as well as before the Tribunal, but both of them have failed in attending to the allegation raised by the delinquent petitioner, for which the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority becomes bad. 4. In his opposition, Sri B.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for O.P.2-Society, contended that the petitioner was facing serious charges. The enquiry was conducted following all due procedures. Natural justice has been complied with wherever required. There has been examination of witnesses in presence of the petitioner and he has also been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Department. Neither the explanation submitted by the petitioner remains satisfactory nor the petitioner could be able to discharge his burden in disputing the allegations made against him. The allegation for change of the Enquiry Officer having been considered and rejected by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner is stopped to raise the allegation with regard to appointment of Enquiry Officer presently. It is on the above premises, Sri Sahoo, learned counsel for the O.P.2, submitted that there has been no illegality in the impugned orders thereby leaving any scope for interfering with the impugned orders by this Court. 5. In spite of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of O.P.1. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Perusal of the records and considering all the allegations and counter-allegations, this Court finds from the very initial stage of the enquiry proceeding that on 15.10.2003 the petitioner requested the Disciplinary Authority for change of the Enquiry Officer on the premises that the Enquiry Officer was a Co-officer working with the petitioner, for the last so many days, he was not pulling on well with the petitioner and the petitioner, therefore, apprehended injustice in the enquiry proceeding. In submitting so, the petitioner also requested the Disciplinary Authority for entrusting the enquiry with a higher officer. Vide a letter dated 22.7.2003, as finds place at Annexure-10, the petitioner also requested the Enquiry Officer for supply of the documents and certain information. It appears, after the aforesaid letter, the petitioner also issued letters on 8.5.2004 and 11.5.2004 asking the Disciplinary Authority for supply of different documents, which was responded by the Department with a denial response taking the plea that some of the documents are either not available or having any relevance and some documents are since privileged documents cannot be supplied. Vide a letter under Annexure-12, the petitioner once again asked for supply of some documents for his defence against the charges framed against him. Vide Annexure-13, the petitioner has communicated the Disciplinary Authority that he has been denied to examine his two witnesses introducing the relevant documents in support of his defence on the premises that the witnesses reached half an hour late. The petitioner also raised all the allegations indicated herein above in the appeal submitted before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority rejected the appeal vide its order dated 20.6.2005 recording the following:- "Your appeal petition dated 03.11.04 to the Appellate Authority against punishment order dated 14.10.04 by Disciplinary Authority stands rejected by order of Management in-charge, PUMUL-cum-Managing Director, OMFED on dated 4.6.05 and order of the Disciplinary Authority confirmed. In continuation to letter No. 1547 dated 2.11.04, you are once again directed to report for duty to M.P.O., Head Office for further assignment by dated 29.6.05, failing which it will be deemed that you have got no intention to join." 8. The petitioner once again raised all these allegations involving Dispute Case No. 14/2005, as clearly appearing from the pleadings made in Paragraphs-4 & 9 involving the dispute petition. This Court observes considering the allegations raised herein above, the Tribunal also framed a very vital issue appearing at issue no. 2, i.e., whether "the enquiry is fair and proper?" 9. Reading the discussions made on issue no. 2, this Court finds, there has been absolutely no consideration of the allegations raised by the petitioner challenging the fairness of the enquiry, particularly, the grounds mentioned herein above. It is only on the premises that the petitioner having not challenged the conduct of enquiry, the Tribunal decided the issue no. 2 against the petitioner. 2, this Court finds, there has been absolutely no consideration of the allegations raised by the petitioner challenging the fairness of the enquiry, particularly, the grounds mentioned herein above. It is only on the premises that the petitioner having not challenged the conduct of enquiry, the Tribunal decided the issue no. 2 against the petitioner. Since the allegation of the petitioner in the matter of fairness in the enquiry involves serious allegations with clear pleading involving the fairness in the enquiry, this Court observes, the appellate authority while considering the appeal ought to have assigned reasons while rejecting the appeal at the instance of the petitioner. Further since the allegations were very much there in the dispute also, the Tribunal being the creator of the statute for deciding disputes of this nature should have dealt with the issue appropriately. This Court finds, the issue no. 2 has been dealt with by the Tribunal casually and as the rest of the issues are much dependent on the ultimate finding involving issue no. 2, this Court while declaring the finding on issue no. 2 as bad also declares the rest of the findings are also bad. As a consequence, while allowing the writ petition, this Court interfering in the findings on issue no. 2 and onwards sets aside the same and remits the matter back to the stage of hearing of the dispute afresh and how the dispute be decided afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and giving a reasoned order involving all the issues. 9. This Court while entertaining the writ petition by order dated 12.12.2011, as an interim measure, directed stay of operation of the order dated 9.11.2010 passed in Service Dispute Case No. 14/2005. Therefore, the position of the petitioner before hearing of the Dispute Case indicated herein above, shall be maintained and the determination of the benefits for the intervening period shall now be dependent on the ultimate outcome in the dispute. The petitioner alleged that since the petitioner was continuing under suspension all through, he is entitled to subsistence allowance all through and outstanding, if any, on this head be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith. The writ petition stands allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs.