JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Filing the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 13.7.2011 passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in the Service Dispute 15 of 2009 under Annexure-1. 2. Short fact involved in the case is that the opposite party no.1 filed a service dispute before the Co-operative Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar challenging his termination from service under order dated 30.3.1999. The opposite party no.1 alleged therein that while he was working as Branch Manager in Rampur Branch, he was placed under suspension. Charges were framed alleging negligence in duty, disobedience, mismanagement of affairs of the branch, disobedience of order and violation of rules and acts, which are detrimental to the interest of the Bank. Opposite party No.1’s explanation being found not satisfactory, an inquiry was initiated. Request of the opposite party no.1 to drop the inquiry for the investigation on the self same issue taken up by the Vigilance Department remained unheeded. Finding the opposite party no.1 remained absent, the Inquiry was concluded ex-parte and the Enquiry Officer submitted an ex-parte report holding the petitioner’s guilty. It is further pleaded that the additional charges were also framed against the opposite party no.1 on 26.4.1995. Here also, the opposite party no.1 submitted his explanation and the Inquiry Officer were appointed to look into the additional charges. This inquiry was also concluded ex-parte and a report was submitted on 9.12.1995 holding the opposite party no.1 again guilty of the charges. Subsequently, another additional Disciplinary Proceeding was drawn up for misappropriation of funds of the Bank. Though the opposite party no.1 received the memo of charges but did not submit his explanation. The matter was enquired into by the Disciplinary Authority. After giving him the opportunity of personal hearing, a decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to dismiss the opposite party no.1 from service finding the charges against him established. It is further disclosed that against the order of dismissal, the opposite party no.1 filed appeal. In the meantime, the opposite party also filed a writ petition before this Court in O.J.C.No.2596 of 2001, which was disposed of with a direction to the President, the appellate authority to dispose the appeal within a period of six weeks. Appeal was heard and rejected. In the meantime, the opposite party also filed a writ petition before this Court in O.J.C.No.2596 of 2001, which was disposed of with a direction to the President, the appellate authority to dispose the appeal within a period of six weeks. Appeal was heard and rejected. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party no.1 filed another writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.1188 of 2002, which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to raise a dispute under Section 67-B of the Orissa Co-operative Society Act, 1962. Consequently, a dispute was raised by the opposite party no.1 numbering Service Dispute No.15 of 2009. Written statement was filed by the petitioner taking the plea that the inquiries have been conducted ex-parte for non-cooperation of the opposite party no.1 at every stage. However, the dispute at the instance of opposite party no.1 was allowed by setting aside the order of the appellate authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Assailing the impugned order, Sri K.P.Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is not only bad in law but even otherwise also looking to the judgment dated 21.7.2006 passed by the Vigilance Court, Bhubaneswar convicting the opposite party no.1, he is otherwise not entitled to any relief at this stage. But as a matter of fact, the co-accused being convicted in the vigilance proceeding and since was continuing in service has been dismissed by an independent order of dismissal following the said judgment. In sum and substance, the submission of Sri Nanda, learned counsel is that the order passed by the Tribunal is bad on the premises that there was no material in support of the opposite party no.1 to dislodge the inquiry reports and the consequential order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in absence of which the order of the Tribunal becomes bad. 4. Sri Mohnaty, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1 on the other hand while seriously objecting the contentions raised by Sri Nanda, contended that from the submission of the petitioner, it is clearly established that the so called inquires have been concluded in absence of the opposite party no.1. 4. Sri Mohnaty, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1 on the other hand while seriously objecting the contentions raised by Sri Nanda, contended that from the submission of the petitioner, it is clearly established that the so called inquires have been concluded in absence of the opposite party no.1. This apart, the Tribunal while adjudicating the matter, in exercise of his power under Section 67-B of the Act, after assessing the rival contentions and perusal of the documents as well as the evidence of the respective parties, has given a clear finding that the inquiry has not only been concluded in absence of the delinquent-opposite party no.1 but the inquiry also found to be involved series of defects and has been concluded mechanically. It is also contended that the conviction of the opposite party no.1 in the vigilance case remained immaterial in the present case as the opposite party no.1 here is dismissed from service by virtue of an outcome in a disciplinary proceeding and the petitioner is estopped from raising any ground involving conviction of the opposite party no.1 in the vigilance case. Further the issue of the opposite party no.1 in the vigilance case being subjudiced in this Court, there is also no finality of the criminal dispute involving the parties. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after going through the pleadings of the opposite party no.1, this Court finds there is no doubt that the opposite party no.1 all through remained non-cooperative in the disciplinary proceedings and the ground of non-cooperation is on the basis of some plea or other. Looking to the report of the Inquiry Officer and the other materials involving the inquiry proceeding concerning the opposite party no.1, this Court finds the observation of the Cooperative Tribunal that there has been a mechanical conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, which remains non-supportive. Further, since the case involves dismissal of an employee, so as to say a capital punishment against an employee, in the interest of justice the disciplinary proceeding should have been concluded giving a chance to the opposite party no.1 and mechanical disposal of the disciplinary proceedings landing with the dismissal of an employee cannot be approved. Further, since the case involves dismissal of an employee, so as to say a capital punishment against an employee, in the interest of justice the disciplinary proceeding should have been concluded giving a chance to the opposite party no.1 and mechanical disposal of the disciplinary proceedings landing with the dismissal of an employee cannot be approved. Looking to the contentions of Sri Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even otherwise the opposite party no.1 cannot be reinstated in service for his conviction in the vigilance proceeding, this Court finds the present case is not involving dismissal of the opposite party no.1 on account of disposal of vigilance proceeding but an action by virtue of the disposal of the disciplinary proceeding, which is absolutely an independent cause of action. 6. Under the above context, it is now required to be seen that since the Tribunal has come to hold that the inquiry involving the opposite party no.1 is mechanical, if the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the dismissal orders? From the entire discussions made herein above and the observations, this Court finds the allegations against the opposite party no.1 being a Secretary, Tribunal after observing that the inquiry against the opposite party no.1 has been concluded mechanically, in interfering in the order of dismissal and the order of the Appellate Authority, ought to have remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh inquiry. Thus, this Court while disapproving the operative part of the order of the Tribunal modifies the same to the extent herein below: “The order no.7343 dated 30.3.1999 of the Management of the Bank dismissing the opposite party no.1 from the Bank and the order of the appellate authority communicated in letter No.1654 dated 25.2.2002 confirming the dismissal of the opposite party no.1 are set aside and as a consequence, the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to restart the inquiry and conclude the same after giving opportunity of evidence and hearing to the opposite party no.1. Benefits for the intervening period shall be dependent upon the fresh outcome in the disciplinary proceeding.” 7. Benefits for the intervening period shall be dependent upon the fresh outcome in the disciplinary proceeding.” 7. Since this Court finds the opposite party no.1 all through remains non-cooperative in the inquiry proceeding, this Court directs the opposite party no.1 to appear before the Disciplinary Authority along with copy of this judgment on 6th December, 2016 and on his appearance before the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority will restart the inquiry and conclude the same within a period of four months thereafter 8. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed but with the direction and observations made hereinabove. No cost.