JUDGMENT S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. 1. Shri Clerk, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to delete respondent No. 5, as he does not press prayer 33(e). Orders accordingly. The petitioner, who happen to be a member of Central Industrial Security Force (hereafter referred to as 'CISF' for the sake of brevity), was working as Constable and whose services came to be terminated, has approached this Court by way of this petition, challenging the order dated 14.04.2009 removing him from service passed by respondent No. 4 and order dated 24.06.2009 passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated 30.09.2009 passed by respondent No. 2, rejecting the appeal and revision of the petitioner against his termination on the ground that the order of termination of appellate authority and revisional authority confirmation thereof is not in consonance with law and it was vitiated on account of total non-application of mind and in violation of principle of natural justice and hence it is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts, as could be seen from the memo of petition would indicate that the petitioner joined CISF as Constable on 31.03.1996. The petitioner put up his continuous service till 14.04.2009, when his removal order came to be passed by the authority pursuant to an inquiry in respect of the charges levelled against him. 2.1 The petitioner was posted at the residence of Executive Director of ONGC at Ankleshwar project since May, 2008 i.e. prior to the incident of theft and arrest of the persons involved in the theft occurred. 2.2 The petitioner received a charge-sheet dated 22.08.2008, inter aha alleging that some phone-calls were made from the cell-phone, which was with the petitioner at that time. The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet vide his reply dated 01.09.2008 inter alia contending that the cell-phone was with the petitioner only during the period from January, 2007 to 17.06.2007 and thereafter it was returned to Shri Ishwarbhai Vasava, who was the owner of the cell-phone and in whose name the sim-card was registered. The phone calls were made from that phone thereafter and the petitioner did not make any such calls nor did he know as to who used the phone and made the calls. 2.3 The departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The phone calls were made from that phone thereafter and the petitioner did not make any such calls nor did he know as to who used the phone and made the calls. 2.3 The departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. It is relevant to note at this stage that in fact in respect of the incident of theft, the police case was lodged and as petitioner's name was revealed in the said case on account of the statement of other accused, he was arrested and it was said that during the course of investigation the phone was recovered from his place. The departmental inquiry was conducted. There were witnesses examined. The petitioner wanted to examine two more witnesses namely Shri Chandrakant Parmar and Shri Dineshbhai Bhatia. These two witnesses were in fact Panch witnesses, so far as the investigation is concerned. These two witnesses were permitted to be brought in the inquiry i.e. departmental inquiry. Once they were brought in, as per the say of the petitioner, they were forced to toe the line of the presenting officer and refusal thereof they were manhandled and as a result thereof they had to leave. The same incident had resulted into lodging of the criminal complaint before the JMFC, Bharuch being Cri. Inq. No. 01/09 at the behest of one Shri Chandrakant Parmar i.e. one witness. Both the witnesses filed affidavits also and they were placed on record of this proceeding. The inquiry thereafter was conducted irrespective of petitioner's absence. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 19.03.2009 holding that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. It is pertinent to note at this stage that the incident of manhandling of the witnesses is said to have occurred on 03.01.2009 and hence on the next date i.e. on 04.01.2009, the petitioner urged the disciplinary authority for changing the inquiry officer as well as presenting officer, as they were responsible for manhandling of witnesses to be produced on behalf of the petitioner, which communication had remained without any response, as per the say of the petitioner. Though there is a say of the respondent that this was in fact dispatched. Though there is a say of the respondent that this was in fact dispatched. But, there is no documentary evidence indicating that the said rejection had ever been communicated to the petitioner and on 21.03.2009 the petitioner in fact made a submission in writing to the concerned authorities with regard to his request for changing the inquiry officer and the presenting officer. 2.4 The disciplinary authority passed the order of penalty on 14.04.2009, whereby the petitioner was removed from service. The said order was challenged in departmental appeal before the respondent No. 3, wherein the petitioner inter alia contended that there was no compliance with the principle of natural justice. The inquiry and presenting officers were not changed and, therefore, the appeal be allowed. The appeal memo is produced at Annexure-L in the compilation. 2.5 The appellate authority-respondent No. 3, however dismissed the appeal by order dated 24.06.2009, copy whereof is produced at Annexure-M in the present compilation. The said order of appellate authority was subject matter of revision petition filed by the petitioner, which led before the respondent No. 2. The copy of the revision memo is produced at Annexure-N. The respondent No. 2 passed an order on 20.09.2009, dismissing the revision petition. The said order is produced at Annexure-O. The petitioner has made averment in the petition in paragraph No. 20 qua his serious handicaps in challenging the order in time. Hence, it was explained in the memo that petitioner's mother was suffering from serious illness and his father was suffering from paralysis and the impugned orders were in fact challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which came to be withdrawn so as to file the appropriate proceedings before this Court and the petition was presented on 03.10.2012 and the copies of medical certificates etc. were produced at Annexure-P. 2.6 The petitioner submits that as per the Gujarat High Court Rules 1993 and particularly Rule 2(10)(1), Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are to be disposed of by learned single Judge. As per the say of the petitioner, the service matters of an employee of the State Government filed under Article 226 are listed before the single Judge, therefore, the service matter of an employee of the Central Government under Article 226 should also been placed before the learned single Judge. As per the say of the petitioner, the service matters of an employee of the State Government filed under Article 226 are listed before the single Judge, therefore, the service matter of an employee of the Central Government under Article 226 should also been placed before the learned single Judge. There is no justification for placing this service matter before the Division Bench, the same is arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner loses a valuable right of intra court appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent Appeal. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the administrative order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice directing to place this matter before the Division Bench is contrary to rules and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2.7 Being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 14.04.2009 passed by respondent No. 4, order dated 24.06.2009 passed by appellate authority and order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the revisional authority, the present petition is preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that inquiry proceedings can be said to be vitiated, as the witnesses namely Chandrakant Parmar and Shri Dineshbhai Bhatia were prevented from being examined, as it is stated, hereinabove. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited this Court's attention to the memo of the charge-sheet and submitted that if the charge-sheet is perused closely it can well be said that on account of framing of the charge and the language, the charge was revolving about recovery of mobile-phone or the cell-phone from the house of the petitioner and the two witnesses were said to be Panch witnesses for that recovery. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the documentary evidence produced on record, would clearly go to show that the petitioner did participate in the inquiry proceedings and when the inquiry proceedings were being held on 02.01.2009, he sought permission to bring aforesaid two witnesses, which came to be granted, which can be said to be evident from the inquiry proceedings of 02.01.2009. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the said two witnesses were accordingly came on 03.01.2009 and their presence in the premises is evident from the entry, which is recorded in the General Diary. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the said two witnesses were accordingly came on 03.01.2009 and their presence in the premises is evident from the entry, which is recorded in the General Diary. The said two witnesses when refused to toe the line of the presenting officer, they were beaten and the entire episode in fact resulted into a criminal complaint being Cri. Inq. No. 01/09 came to be filed before the J.M.F.C. concerned. Though the inquiry officer and the presenting officer in order to camouflage the entire incident saw to it that the evidence are destroyed, as the entry No. 620, which was made in the General Diary indicating the presence, was in fact tampered with by adding an additional leaf in the diary which is borne out from the deposition of the person, who was responsible for making entry in the diary namely Shri K.D. Rao, who was in fact subjected to a discrete inquiry in which his statement came to be recorded, which was also forming part of the appeal and revision. However, the same was of no avail, as the authorities without adverting to this aspect decided against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the inquiry proceedings were in fact also drawn in order to project as if the petitioner had remained absent along with his witnesses on the day. These aspects were quite germane and required to be addressed by all the concerned and as there is no proper advertence to this aspect by the concerned authorities, it was submitted that not only the inquiry stood vitiated, but the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority were also not tenable in eye of law on the count that the authorities did not appreciate or rather chose not to appreciate these facts on true perspective. 8. 8. The communication addressed to the petitioner for inviting him in the inquiry thereafter were merely for the sake of sending it and projecting as if the inquiry is conducted in accordance with principle of natural justice, as there was in fact non-availability of the petitioner on account of his illness i.e. on 06.01.2009, as his illness is also evident from the material on record, which has not been denied and thereafter on account of his illness despite informing the petitioner the authorities continued with the inquiry ex parte which resulted into submission of the report of holding petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited Court's attention to the memo of the appeal as well as revision application and pointed out therefrom that the very important aspect of witnesses being manhandled was highlighted. But, unfortunately, the same has not been adverted to. Though in the comments which were submitted by the department, as could be seen from the concerned remarks, it would be evident that the statement was made by Shri Rao in the inquiry. However, what was the statement is unfortunately not clearly mentioned and it was attempted to be glossed over by saying that the criminal complaint is pending and the matter is sub judice and it is being a separate issue no further advertence was made. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also invited this Court's attention to the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority and submitted that a very vital and important aspect of the manhandling of the witnesses, so as to score them away from the inquiry, has not been considered in its true perspective and that has been vitiated the inquiry. As a result thereof, the resultant order i.e. order of punishment and the order passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority were vitiated and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the genesis of the charge-sheet emanates from the fact that the petitioner was found to be involved in a crude oil theft case, which was reported to the police and the petitioner's name was revealed by the co-accused. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the genesis of the charge-sheet emanates from the fact that the petitioner was found to be involved in a crude oil theft case, which was reported to the police and the petitioner's name was revealed by the co-accused. The petitioner was arrested and as the arrest was reported, he was placed under suspension and in the course of investigation it was revealed that the cell-phone was used for making calls on the co-accused and the cell-phone was recovered from the residence of the petitioner and as there is a deposition of I.O. in the inquiry, the charge levelled against the petitioner were said to be proved. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited Court's attention to the deposition of the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the management to support her contention that the cell-phone was in fact recovered from the house of the petitioner and the petitioner was responsible for intimating the authorities that his cell-phone, as on record, he was supposed to indicate the mobile-phone number in which he had submitted that this was his phone number and hence there was clear nexus which resulted into issuance of charge-sheet against the petitioner which cannot be said to be in any manner uncalled for or without any authority of law. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents thereafter invited this Court's attention to the inquiry proceedings and submitted that the say of the petitioner qua man-handling of two witnesses cannot be said to be correct, as the proceedings of the inquiry and the subsequent proceedings and intimation to the petitioner would clearly indicate that there was no such incident ever noticed by the concerned, so far as the employer and his other officers are concerned. 14. She also invited Court's attention to the facts that the criminal complaint being criminal complaint No. 1/2009 had in fact been withdrawn on account of police inquiry which indicated that there was no such incident ever occurred. In view thereof, this Court may not be impressed by the submission of the petitioner without being any cogent evidence to support the same. 15. In view thereof, this Court may not be impressed by the submission of the petitioner without being any cogent evidence to support the same. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following authorities; (i) in case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 327 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3004 ); (ii) in case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and another, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 41 : ( AIR 2002 SC 2676 ); 16. By relying upon those decisions, it was contended that in case if the Court comes to the conclusion that the inquiry was vitiated and in case if the Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside, then in that case, as there is no evidence on record indicating that the petitioner has remained unemployed for all these period, let there be no order of backwages and at least the respondent authorities be permitted to hold the inquiry at least from the stage wherefrom it is said to have been vitiated. 17. It was further submitted that the inquiry if at all considered to be vitiated on account of the alleged manhandling of the two witnesses, then also the inquiry officer's report and the glaring facts may persuade this Court not to interfere with the orders impugned. However, the entire inquiry may not be held to be vitiated, as there is no grievance on the part of the petitioner qua the earlier proceedings i.e. proceeding prior to 03.01.2009. Hence, it was urged that in case if the Court comes to the conclusion that the inquiry was vitiated on account of alleged manhandling of the witnesses at least from 3rd January onwards, the inquiry be permitted to be proceeded with as otherwise it would leave department without any remedy and accept the officer who has said to have been involved in criminal offence. 18. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties, it would be most appropriate to set out hereunder few indisputable aspects namely; (i) The petitioner had joined CISF as constable on 31.03.1996. Thus, when his service came to be terminated, he had put in almost 13 years of service. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties, it would be most appropriate to set out hereunder few indisputable aspects namely; (i) The petitioner had joined CISF as constable on 31.03.1996. Thus, when his service came to be terminated, he had put in almost 13 years of service. (ii) The petitioner has averred in the memo of the petition, which has not been controverted that till the incident of charge-sheet, there was no blemish in the record of the petitioner. (iii) The respondents have not controverted that the petitioner was posted at residence of Executive Director of ONGC at Ankleshwar Project since about May, 2008 i.e. long before the incident of theft and arrest occurred. (iv) The memorandum of charge-sheet dated 22.08.2008 was issued to the petitioner. The charge memorandum contain three charges namely; (a) On 16.06.2008, Local Crime Branch, Bharuch had seized Tata Tempo containing 58 Jerikin filled up with crude oil being theft from the oil field, ONGC, Ankleshwar, along with one Tata Indica Car and arrested three accused persons from Umarvada crossing. One of the accused gave name of the present petitioner indicating involvement, which resulted into arrest of the petitioner on 17.07.2008 followed by suspension order. Hence, it was alleged that the petitioner in collusion with the thieves abetted them for theft of property of ONGC Ankleshwar and he abused his post, which is gross misconduct on his part and amounting to tarnishing the image of force. (b) The delinquent charged-staff member obtained one cell-phone from Ishwarbhai Vasava being mobile phone number 9904097384 in January, 2007 and kept with him till 17.07.2008 i.e. till it was not recovered by police and he kept for using it daily for contacting the persons in respect of the incident of 16.06.2008, as from the cell-phone number, the concerned accused were contacted. As many as, 30 calls were made. Thus, he was charged that keeping relations with the accused persons involved in crime obtaining cell-phone from them and contacting them for helping them in committing the theft, which is contrary to the rules and also an act of indiscipline. (c) On being demanded by the Ankleshwar Unit, the accused gave the said phone number projecting it to be his cell number on demand from ONGC, Ankleshwar Unit, which has been recorded. (c) On being demanded by the Ankleshwar Unit, the accused gave the said phone number projecting it to be his cell number on demand from ONGC, Ankleshwar Unit, which has been recorded. The phone did not belong to him yet he said that phone belongs to him and there could be talked thereon. This was misleading and misconduct hence, he was charged. (v) The documents given along with charge-sheet contained six items. The 6th item was being any other document that should be considered proper during the investigation and Item Nos. 1 to 5 were pertaining to the information report of the crime of theft being CR-I 70/08, lodged on 16.08.2008. List of mobile phone issued by the office of the Company. Police Inspector's intimation and call details from 01.06.2008 to 02.07.2008 made from Phone No. 9904097384 of Idea Company. The list of witnesses contain following; (01) D.R. Agrawat, Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Bharuch. (02) Ishwarbhai Lavghan Vasava, Village Pungav, Ankleshwar. (03) Reserved Inspector, ONGC Ankleshwar. (04) Any other witness who may be considered necessary during investigation. (vi) The petitioner replied vide his communication dated 01.09.2008 denying the allegations made in the charge-sheet inter alia contending that the mobile in question, which he had obtained from Ishwarbhai for a period of six months and only on account thereof he shocked to be roped in the said offence. He contended that the mobile-phone was with him from January, 2007 to 17.06.2007 and thereafter this was handed over back to said Ishwarbhai. He said that on 16.06.2008 to 17.06.2008 he had not made any calls to the persons involved in the offence and when he was arrested and no mobile was recovered from him. He reiterated that the mobile-phone was with him only up to 17.06.2007 only and he had no knowledge that said Ishwarbhai was having any tendency to commit offence and he was innocent. (vii) The statement of Shri D.R. Agrawat, Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Bharuch, who happened to be PW-1 in the inquiry proceedings indicated that the offence was registered on 16.06.2008 on the basis of FIR filed by the prosecution vide Crime No. I-70/08 under Sections 379, 120B, 285 of IPC and 15 of Indian Petroleum & Pipe Line Act, and 3, 7 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. As the accused gave the name of the petitioner also, he came to be arrested on 17.07.2008 at 19:00 hours and was taken on remand on 18.07.2008. The cell-phone belongs to address of accused issued by Ishwarbhai Lavghanbhai Vasava. The said number was being used by the delinquent by Nokia Model No. 1600 with IMEI No. 356977010391687 and it was also alleged that he was remained in contact with other accused. It transpired during the cross-examination that this mobile was allotted to Ishwarbhai L. Vasava. It is required to be noted that in the cross-examination at the behest of the delinquent, the answer was given that from the information received from Idea Company, the said cell number was allotted to Ishwarbhai L. Vasava. There was no further question on this. Then the presenting officer put up a question that from where did he recover the cell number and mobile phone used by the delinquent. In answer thereto the PW-1 submitted that the said phone was recovered on 18.07.2008 between 18:00 hours to 19:00 hours from the delinquent's residence at Amboli in presence of the Panchas, which was submitted. (viii) It is required to be noted at this stage that the owner of the phone on the record of the telephone service provider as well as all the concerned Shri Iswarbhai L. Vasava was named as witness of the management, as could be seen from the list of witnesses produced at page No. 24. His name figures at serial No. 2. It is also important to note that the said witness was examined in which it transpires that he presented himself on 29.09.2008 before Inquiry Officer, wherein one statement purported to have been made by him on 04.08.2008. He was surprised to read, as he said that no such statement made ever by him. So far as, thumb impression is concerned, he submitted that few days ago two persons riding on motorcycle, has approached him near Varuchi Naka Auto Stand and said that I had to sign this, which had put up my thumb impression and he don't know about any person like the delinquent. (ix) In cross-examination at the behest of the delinquent, he denied that there was any relationship with the delinquent and also denied that he ever talked about the theft. (ix) In cross-examination at the behest of the delinquent, he denied that there was any relationship with the delinquent and also denied that he ever talked about the theft. The inquiry in question and in answer to the question of presenting officer that as per the statement recorded on 04.08.2008, he had been returned the phone to the delinquent, the answer was given that as there was no such statement given by him, that question put forward by the presenting officer was without any basis. When presenting officer asked him that there was thumb impression on the papers of ONGC, he repeated his version that few days ago two personnel of CISF, ONGC had come on the Motorcycle and asked me to give statement in respect of the theft for which he was not agreeing, therefore, they had taken his thumb impression on the peace of paper and it was not informed that what has been written thereon. (x) In question to the inquiry officer that how many mobile phone was recovered from him by the officers, PW-2 submitted that two mobiles were recovered. To question that whether the mobile No. 9904097384 was recovered from the delinquent or from Shri Vasava, the answer was that it was recovered from him i.e. Shri Vasava. In answer to the question that when did he receive back the mobile to the delinquent, Shri Vasava answer that he had not given any mobile to the delinquent. With regard to making the panchnama, be pleaded ignorance about the cell. (xi) The management's witness No. 3 was Reserved Inspector, ONGC, Ankleshwar Shri J.K. Kalra, who deposed qua receiving the numbers of the constables and recording them for contacting them in case of emergency. The delinquent put the questions that the posting at the Bungalow of E.D. ONGC, is important or not? It is answered that it is important. To question that whether it is rotational? The answer was given no it was at the behest of Unit Commandant. To question that whether any telephone facility is made available? The answer was that there are two telephones available first at Quarter Guard and second in Command Officer and incoming facilities given to all. The mobile number asked was for any extension or it was personal? The mobile No. 9904097384 belonging to the delinquent. To question that whether any telephone facility is made available? The answer was that there are two telephones available first at Quarter Guard and second in Command Officer and incoming facilities given to all. The mobile number asked was for any extension or it was personal? The mobile No. 9904097384 belonging to the delinquent. How did he come to know that this mobile is that of delinquent while preparing the list as per the instructions of the officer concerned. In answer to the question pressed by P.O. that whether the delinquent was served at the Bungalow of the officer for one and half year. The answer was in affirmation. The inquiry officer also posed three questions, two were in respect of the duty and one was with regard to the recovery of the mobile phone for which the ignorance was pleaded by the witness and the third question was with regard to recovery of any material or property of ONGC from the delinquent's house? He pleaded ignorance. On 26.11.2008, the inquiry proceedings were, so far as the management witnesses and case were concerned, were treated to be over, as the material against the delinquent was enlisted in Item Nos. 1 to 4 and he was called upon to put up his defence, if any, on 29.11.2008. 19. Against the aforesaid backdrop of almost indisputable factual aspects, the rival contentions are required to be examined in light of the law prevailing. 20. The fact remains to be borne in mind that the delinquent was in fact arrested and enlarged on bail in connection with the crime registered being CR-170/08 and he is in fact facing criminal trial. But that is not the ground on which the removal of his service was brought about. The close perusal of the charge-sheet would rather indicate that almost on similar aspect the departmental inquiry was also conducted, as the main plank of the three charges as stated hereinabove, indicated that the department proceeded against the delinquent, as if, the department was conducting a trial. The close perusal of the charge-sheet would rather indicate that almost on similar aspect the departmental inquiry was also conducted, as the main plank of the three charges as stated hereinabove, indicated that the department proceeded against the delinquent, as if, the department was conducting a trial. The Court needs to be mindful of the fact that the charge and the couching of the charge and the subsequent proceedings would indicate that as the charges were couched, the proceedings were required to be in light thereof and hence bearing these factors in mind the Court will have to examine as to whether the order of termination and subsequent confirmation thereof by the appellate as well as revisional authorities could be said to be in accordance with law or not? The authorities have in fact cited one Shri Ishwarbhai Vasava, who may be for establishing the charge of the cell-phone possession with the delinquent and use of the cell-phone for establishing contacts with those who were involved in theft. Unfortunately, the said witness did not support the case of the presenting officer in any manner and he has gone up to the extent of disowning the statement with which he was confronted i.e. statement dated 04.08.2008, though, he did not dispute the thumb mark thereon. However, he explained the existence of thumb mark and the circumstances in which the same was taken. The fact remains to be noted that this witness was in fact co-accused in the criminal proceeding, but having chosen to invite him as a witness on behalf of the department on the strength of the statement for proving the possession of the cell-phone with the delinquent. It was bounden duty case upon not only the disciplinary authority, but also on appellate authority or revisional authority to appreciate this aspect on its true perspective. The inquiry officer, if one looks at the inquiry report, has merely mentioned about the deposition of said witness, but has restrained from rendering his conclusion thereon. 21. It was bounden duty case upon not only the disciplinary authority, but also on appellate authority or revisional authority to appreciate this aspect on its true perspective. The inquiry officer, if one looks at the inquiry report, has merely mentioned about the deposition of said witness, but has restrained from rendering his conclusion thereon. 21. The Court need not delve much upon this aspect, as the said witness being PW-2, could not have been expected of coming out with the facts, however, one needs to be mindful of the proposition in law that the departmental inquiry proceedings are not equivalent and akin to criminal trial and, therefore, unfortunately in departmental proceeding, there is no scope for treating someone as hostile so as to discard him totally. Assuming for the sake of examining without holding that the procedure similar to that of was available, then also the clear unequivocal advertence to the deposition would indicate the entire process and the conclusion as to why the said deposition before the inquiry officer during the course of inquiry was not accepted. The reasons were not obvious, however, the fact remains that PW-2 was produced for proving vital link between cell-phone and the delinquent and when the owner of the cell-phone in whose name the cell-phone and sim-card were said to have been existing does not corroborate the statement, in any manner, then a proper dealing therewith not only by the inquiry officer but also by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority was very essential, as it would be a very important factor for establishing the case of the presenting officer against the delinquent. The said deposition of the PW-2 have been obviously discarded without there being any advertence to it and hence it can well be said that the same was not in accordance with law, as all the authorities were required to take that into consideration and recorded the reasons for discarding the same. The lack of advertence to it and recording the reasons would indicate that there was no reason for discarding the same as by citing the witness, if his testimony is not advertent to, it may amount to selecting the testimony of witness, who has corroborated or supported the case of the presenting officer, which may question the very conducting of the inquiry, as it is supposed to have been conducted in absolutely impartial manner. The respondent authorities were under obligation, therefore, to deal with it and discard it by reason so as to absolve themselves of the allegation of one cited inquiry and disciplinary proceedings. 22. The PW-1 and his testimony said that the cell-phone was recovered from the delinquent on 18.07.2008, in presence of the panch and it transpired in his answering the questions of presenting officer that the cell-phone was recovered from the place of the delinquent at Amboli in presence of Panch. In other words, in his coming out from the testimony of this witness that the cell-phone had not been recovered from the person of the delinquent, when he was arrested and being subjected to remand. It is also required to be noted that the said witness in answering to the question of inquiry officer that whether the name of the delinquent appeared in FIR lodged on 16.06.2008? He answered that the name of the delinquent did not occur in the First Information Report lodged on 16.06.2008, however, during the course of inquiry and investigation of the other his name was revealed. 23. Bearing this testimony in mind, if one examines the inquiry officer's report and the impugned orders one will have to hold that the said testimony is taken to be a testimony based whereupon the conclusion of the possession of the phone is said to have been established. 24. The fact remains to be noted that when the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of putting forward his version and put up his defence, he examined three witnesses whose depositions are placed on record at page Nos. 58 to 66. The close perusal thereof, also would indicate that the witnesses deposed that they did not contact the delinquent on the number said to have been belonging and used by the delinquent. There was a precise question put to the first witness by the Inquiry Officer and answer that as to whether the delinquent was contacted on that number, the answer was in negative. 25. The two witnesses, who were panchs and in whose presence it was alleged that the phone was recovered from the place of the petitioner, which request was in fact granted, as could be seen from the proceeding of the inquiry dated 02.01.2009. 25. The two witnesses, who were panchs and in whose presence it was alleged that the phone was recovered from the place of the petitioner, which request was in fact granted, as could be seen from the proceeding of the inquiry dated 02.01.2009. These two witnesses were required to be examined as it was alleged that in their presence, the cell-phone was recovered from the place of the delinquent. Accordingly, the permission was granted. There is controversy qua the two witnesses, as it was all along contended by the petitioner that the two witnesses were present before the inquiry officer, but as they did not accept to toe the line of the presenting officer, they were manhandling. Therefore, one witness was compel to lodged criminal complaint being C.R. No. 170/2008, narrating the incident of manhandling on which there was some inquiry proceedings, whereas the I.O. and the presenting officer have maintained that on the date i.e. on 03.01.2009, neither the delinquent nor his witnesses turned up and hence, the proceedings were adjourned. 26. The department thereafter attempted to send intimation to the delinquent for remaining present to the inquiry, which according to them were not acceded to and according to the delinquent on account of his ailment and as his request for change of inquiry officer and presenting officer in light of the manhandling of the witnesses, were not accepted and on account of his ailment he could not make it to the inquiry proceeding. The delinquent in fact made this request in writing right on the next date i.e. on 04.01.2009, which letter is at page No. 116. The said letter, as per the say of the delinquent had not been considered. However, during the course of submission, the counsel for the respondent submitted that she could gather something from the file which may indicate that the request was declined. However, she could not point out the communication thereof to the delinquent. 27. The inquiry was concluded and copy whereof was furnished to the delinquent. The inquiry officer has all along maintained that the two witnesses, who were said to have been manhandled were not present at all and there is no discussion, therefore, naturally in the inquiry officer's report, the copy of the report was furnished to the delinquent and he put up his reply. The inquiry officer has all along maintained that the two witnesses, who were said to have been manhandled were not present at all and there is no discussion, therefore, naturally in the inquiry officer's report, the copy of the report was furnished to the delinquent and he put up his reply. His complaint about manhandling of the witnesses had remained without any consideration, as he had not received any reply thereon and he urged for an opportunity. 28. The disciplinary authority has also accepted the version of the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner did not produce the said two witnesses and not remained present on 03.01.2009. He had also recorded that affording one more opportunity, the notice was issued intimating the petitioner, the next date of inquiry i.e. 06.01.2009, but the delinquent did not remain present. The inquiry was postponed to 10.02.2009 and 27.02.2009, when the notice for those inquiry proceedings were not accepted and as he had not remained present on 05.03.2009, the inquiry officer had decided to complete the inquiry ex parte. That was intimated to the delinquent vide order dated 03.03.2009, but that letter was also refused by the delinquent. This was viewed as an attempt to prolong the inquiry for no reason and hence it was held that ex parte conducting inquiry thereafter was justified. 29. Even the brief note of the submission of the presenting officer were supplied to the delinquent which were not accepted by the delinquent nor did he tender any explanation to that and as the inquiry officer has found that all charges were established and as there was no breach of principle of natural justice, in any manner and he adverted to the reply on the inquiry officer's report submitted by delinquent on 31.03.2009 in which the delinquent did demand inquiry in respect of the conduct of the Presenting Officer as well as Inquiry Officer. But, at this stage, unfortunately there is no discussion or finding recorded to the effect that the say of the delinquent was not acceptable in respect of the manhandling of the witnesses. 30. In our view, the disciplinary authority was under obligation to advert to and address itself to this aspect and was required to deal with it by giving reasons as to why the say of the delinquent was not acceptable to the authority and why the say of the Inquiry Officer was acceptable. 30. In our view, the disciplinary authority was under obligation to advert to and address itself to this aspect and was required to deal with it by giving reasons as to why the say of the delinquent was not acceptable to the authority and why the say of the Inquiry Officer was acceptable. The uncanny silence on this aspect, as could be seen from the discussion in the order impugned dated 14.04.2009, would clearly indicate that there was no reasoning coming forward for rejecting the say of the delinquent. In fact, an impartial proving into the say of the petitioner qua manhandling of the witnesses and the lodging of the criminal complaint was warranted. The entire aspect was touching upon the compliance with the principle of natural justice. In case, if the delinquent's say was found to be correct, then it goes without saying that there was clear breach of principle of natural justice and, therefore, the disciplinary authority when was assessing the report, it was under obligation to ensure that there was no breach of principle of natural justice. Unfortunately, the discussion in the order dated 14.04.2009 is absolutely silent qua the aspect. 31. It appears that the say of the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer that the delinquent remained absent along with his witness is accepted without considering the rival submission and version of the delinquent. The Disciplinary Authority was under obligation to address to this issue and recorded its reason for not accepting the version of the petitioner. To that extent, the order is rendered vitiated, as the same is not containing any discussion or reasoning qua not accepting the version of the petitioner-delinquent. 32. The disciplinary authority has concluded that in view of the testimony of the witnesses, he was of the opinion that the charges levelled against the delinquent were proved and he, therefore, concurred with the Inquiry Officer's report in its totality. So far as, the complaint made by the delinquent qua non-furnishing of the opportunity of examining two witnesses and their manhandling is concerned, the disciplinary authority has also missed the point and proceeded on altogether incorrect premise that the demand for inquiring into the conduct of I.O. and P.O. being subject-matter of criminal case. The veracity of the said claim be better to be decided by the Court only. The veracity of the said claim be better to be decided by the Court only. The incorrect premise absolutely clear from the plain and simple reading of the conclusion in paragraph No. 11, as the disciplinary authority has not appreciated or rather failed in appreciating the fact that the delinquent was not interested only in inquiry into the conduct of the P.O. and I.O., but rather he was submitting that on account of this manhandling of witnesses, he missed an opportunity of examining them in whose absence it would have been difficult for establishing the nexus of cell-phone being recovered from the place of the petitioner. This aspect has not been appreciated at all rather the complaint of the delinquent was treated as a complaint simpliciter calling upon the authorities to enquire into the misconduct, which disciplinary authority opined to be subject-matter of judicial scrutiny, as the criminal case was pending. 33. It is required to be reiterated at the cost of repetition that it is quite obvious that delinquent was not complaining simpliciter qua the manhandling of the witnesses rather he was calling upon the disciplinary authority and all the concerned to see to it that principle of natural justice are complied with and absolute opportunity is available to the delinquent for proving and establishing his case and challenging version of the presenting officer. This angle has not been addressed at all by the concerned authority. To that effect, one can safely say that the omission has rendered the order un-reasoned order or non speaking order, so far as the claim of the petitioner qua breach of principle of natural justice is concerned on account of manhandling of the witnesses, who were vital, as could be seen from the case, as the entire involvement of the petitioner was linked on the basis of the recovery of the cell-phone to which as per the say of even the Investigating Officer in criminal investigation that case was based upon the panchnama and these two witnesses were panch witnesses. 34. 34. It is all the more important to mention here that when the co-accused's statement was thought it fit to be obtained by the department, as it has come on record that the co-accused in the Criminal Case namely; Shri Ishwarbhai Vasava whose phone was said to have been found from the possession of the petitioner was accorded and it was cited as presenting officer's witness. One fails that why and for what reason when panchas were available, that statement were not recorded or when there was a clear and unequivocal demand from the delinquent for examining them and when it was granted and when they were said to be maltreated and manhandled, it was a duty cast upon not only the Inquiry Officer, but also the disciplinary authority to appreciate this aspect and record his reasoning for not accepting the aspect. The disciplinary authority, therefore, under obligation to address this issue, as it was posed by the delinquent in his reply dated 21.03.2009, in which even the copy of the criminal complaint was submitted, as could be seen from the enclosure item No. 2. There is not only advertence to the complaint, but there is absolute silence qua the claim of the petitioner of violation of principle of natural justice. Hence, the disciplinary authority, at this stage, was required to record its unequivocal findings qua the petitioner's version being wrong or otherwise in absence of such finding, it can well be said that the entire issue was side tracked by merely treating the complaint by disciplinary authority as complaint and not inquiry against the I.O. and P.O. This is all the moreso, as later on, as it would be discussed hereafter, that there was a clear statement of the concerned officer who was responsible for maintaining General Diary, which contain the list of visitors with timing etc. 35. At this stage, it would not be out of place to refer to the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Shri Shakti Dhar Dobhal affirmed on 27th December, 2012 in which in paragraph No. 9, the following assertion is made, which is required to be reproduced as under; "9. 35. At this stage, it would not be out of place to refer to the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Shri Shakti Dhar Dobhal affirmed on 27th December, 2012 in which in paragraph No. 9, the following assertion is made, which is required to be reproduced as under; "9. With respect to paras 9 to 19, it is submitted that with regard to the complaint against the inquiry officer and presenting officer are concerned, the same has been withdrawn and a report thereof has been sent by the Commandant, CISF Unit ONGC, Ankleshwar to DIG/CISF[WZ] vide letter dated 9/10/2009. Annexed and enclosed herewith as Annexure - R1 is the xerox copy of the said letter. It is further submitted that ample opportunities were extended to the petitioner to defend his case but the petitioner had opted not to co-operate during the course of departmental inquiry and therefore, ex parte order was passed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce a defence witnesses on 3/1/2009. That he deliberately remained absent, which can be seen from page-4 of the final order of punishment dated 14/4/2009. The petitioner thereafter was given another date on 6/1/2009 but on that day also he remained absent. That the charges against the petitioner were proved during the course of departmental inquiry and therefore, was removed from the services by the disciplinary authority. The appellant authority had considered the appeal of the petitioner and dismissed the same being devoid of merits. The Provisional authority had also rejected the revision of the petitioner." 36. Now, if one peruses the Annexure-R/1 at page No. 224 in the compilation, it appears to be a communication addressed to the Deputy Inspector General, CISF Headquarter, New Mumbai from the commandant CISF Unit, Ankleshwar, which verbatim is required to be reproduced for understanding the purport and the development of the events; "Office of the Commandant Central Industrial security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs) Unit ONGC Ankleshwar Distt: Bharuch (Gujarat) No. E-42012/Comp-Misc/PA-09/3496 To, The Deputy Inspector General, CISF W/Z H. Qrs, New Mumbai Sub: COMPLAINT AGAINST SHRI N.K. MAHRAJ, AC/EO & P.K. DUBEY, SI/PO/ Kindly refer to your office letter No. V-12013/CISF/MKH/WZ/PA/09-3360 DATED 26.06.09 AND No. V-1202/WZ/MKH/PAAIG/2009/CS-527 dated 30.09.09 on the subject cited above. 2. 2. The undersigned has gone through the entire papers on record related to above subject and on enquiry it has been found that Ex-Constable Rakesh Bastwar of this unit whose DE was being carried-out by erstwhile AC, CISF Unit ONGC Gandhar Shri N.K. Mahraj was called for DE on 03.01.09 at CISF Unit ONGC Gandhar along with two civilians. The names of those civilians were known as Mr. Chandra Kant Bikha Bhai Parmar and Mr. Dinesh Laxman Bhatia -- both resident of Ankleshwar. It is pertinent to mention here that this civilian Mr. Chandra Kant Bikha Bhai Parmar had lodged a complaint dated 05.01.09 through Advocate Shri T. Chaudhary in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bharuch against the mis-behavior done by Shri N.K. Mahraj, AC(EO) and SI/Min P.K. Dubey (PO) of ONGC Gandhar. Thereafter, the Court had given directions to SC/ST Cell for further investigation. Accordingly, Shri B.S. Nimana, Dy. S.R., Bharuch was investigating the case. 3. During the course of enquiry it is known that on 03.01.2009 ASI/Exe (Now SI) K.D. Rao of CISF Unit ONGC Gandhar was deployed as Shift In-charge in first shift who on identifying the above Ex-Constable Rakesh Bastwar and two civilians named above had made a GD entry at Sl. No. 620 at 1002 hrs. 4. While above SI/EXE K.R. Rao was again deployed as Shift In-charge on 13.01.09, he was called by the then AC Shri N.K. Mahraj, ONGC Gandhar in his Chamber at 1100 hrs where he was forced to reflect OK report in place of G.D. Sl. No. 620 dated 03.01.09 which he had done accordingly. In this connection, the undersigned is of the opinion that the motives of erstwhile AC Shri N.K. Mahraj of ONGC Gandhar was only to hide the fact dated 03.01.09 regarding arrival of Ex-Constable Rakesh Bastwar and above two civilians at CISF Unit ONGC Gandhar who had made a complaint in the Court. As such, while above SI K.D. Rao was pressurized by Shri N.K. Mahraj, AC and SI/Min P.K. Dubey of ONGC Gandhar, he was compelled to alter the GD entry dated 03.01.09 to 'OK' report in place of arrival of report of above civilians and charged official Ex-Const. Rakesh Bastwar dated 03.01.09. 5. Now, the civilian complainant Mr. As such, while above SI K.D. Rao was pressurized by Shri N.K. Mahraj, AC and SI/Min P.K. Dubey of ONGC Gandhar, he was compelled to alter the GD entry dated 03.01.09 to 'OK' report in place of arrival of report of above civilians and charged official Ex-Const. Rakesh Bastwar dated 03.01.09. 5. Now, the civilian complainant Mr. Chandra Kant Bikha Bhai Parmar has withdrawn the complaint from the Court and on our pursuance a copy from the Court has been obtained related to withdrawn of the said complaint which is in Gujarati, language. The Court document related to withdrawn of the complaint by the complainant consisting 05 pages are sent herewith in original along with its translated copy in Hindi (03 pages) for kind perusal as desired vide your office letter No. (527) dated 30.09.09 please." 37. Thus, what is asserted by the deponent of the affidavit and sought to be justified on the strength of the order of the disciplinary authority dated 14.04.2009 is completely belied by the clear and unequivocal facts emerging from Annexure-R/1, letter dated 09.10.2009, as the Court, at this stage, is considering the complaint qua two witnesses. It would not be out of place to refer to the statement of said Shri Rao, who unequivocally made a statement before the concerned authority in the discreet inquiry. If that statement is perused closely i.e. dated 30.03.2009, that would indicate unequivocally that the say of the petitioner was correct qua the two witnesses being brought and they were also taken in before the inquiry officer. If that statement is perused closely i.e. dated 30.03.2009, that would indicate unequivocally that the say of the petitioner was correct qua the two witnesses being brought and they were also taken in before the inquiry officer. This statement is produced at page No. 307 along with type copy thereof, the scan copy of the same is produced as under; %%c;ku%% cy la-882310024 l-m-fu-@dk;Z ds- Mh- jko fd ds- vkS-lq-cy bZdkbZ ¼lhih,Q½ es ebZ&2007 ls dk;Zjr gqa- fnukad % 03&01&2009 dksa esa ds-vkS-lq-cy bZdkbZ ¼lhih,Q½ dks izFke ikjh esa crkSj ikjh izHkkjh ds drZO; ij rSukr Fkk] bl nkSjku vkj{kd cLrokj ds lkFk nks flfoyh;u vk;s ftudk eSa igpku i= ds rkSj ij ernku i= ns[kk] o psd dj jkstukepk esa Øekad la[;k 620 fnukad 03&01&2009] le; % 10%02 dk vken bUnzkt fd;k] o mudks ogh ij :dus ds fy, cksyk] le; yxHkx 10%30 cts] lgk- lekfn"Vk lkgc vk;s rks crk;k fd vki ls feyus vkj{kd cLrckj o vU; nks flfoyh;u vk;s gS] ,@lh lkgc ds vkns'k mijkar feyus ds fy, vanj Hkst fn;k] blds i'pkr esa viuk izFke ikjh dk dk;Z fu"iknu dj f}rh; ikjh ds mi fujh{kd@dk;Z ,e-,u- fetkZ dks lh-ih-,Q- fujh{kd d{k dk dk;ZHkkj lkSik] o crk;k dh vkj{kd cLrckj vks-,u-th-lh- vadys'oj ls o nks flfoyh;u ,@lh lkgc ls feyus vk;s gS] tks vHkh vanj dk;kZy; esa gS] fnukad 13&01&09 dks esjk lh-ih-,Q- fu- d{k esa izFke ikjh crkSj ikjh izHkkjh drZO; ij rSukrh Fkh] le;% 11%00 cts] yxHkx ,@lh lkgc us eq>s vius dk;kZy; esa cqyk;k] og fnukad % 03&01&09 dks vk;s mudk jkstukepk eaxk;k rRi'pkr mlesa vfrfjDr jkstukepk iUuk yxk dj j[kk Fkk] ftlesa fnukad % 03&01&2009 ds jkstukepk la[;k & 620 ds LFkku ij [kSfj;r fjiksVZ fy[kus dks dgka] esjs uk dgus ds ckotqn ,l,y@,e- ih-ds- nqcs o ,@lh lkgc us vkns'k dk mYy?ku uk le> dj v/kksgLrk{kjh ds vkns'k vuqlkj eSa bUnzkt fd;k] ;gh esjk Ck;ku gS] eS viuh ethZ ls] fcuk fdlh ncko ds ns jgk gqa- c;ku dks i<+dj] le>dj ,oa lgh ikdj gLRkk{kj dj jgk gwa lgh- lgk- mi fujh{kd@dk;Z ds- Mh jko ,-@lh- ;'kikyflax cy Øekad % 882310024 30&03&2009 ds-vkS-lqj{kk cy bZdkbZ lhih,Q This would further get fortified by close perusal of the document at page No. 303, which appears to be para-wise comments on the revision petition submitted by the department in which the petitioner's contention is recorded in Hindi at Item No. 5 and the parawise comment which are in English, are required to be reproduced as under; "As regards mentioning of absence of the petitioner and his defence witnesses on 03.01.2009 are concerned, the same was mentioned on the materials of the enquiry report given by the EO. The EO in his order sheet dated 03.01.2009 has also mentioned that the petitioner-Const/GD Rakesh Bastwar and defence witnesses named Dinesh Laxman Bhatiya and Shri Chandrakant Bhikha Parmar did not appear for DE. However; during the course of an another discreet enquiry conducted by Shri Yashpal Singh, the then AC, GAIL Gandhar it was known that a GD entry at Sl. No. 620 on 03.01.2009 was made by ASI/Exe K.D. Rao whereafter a case was filed against EO Shri N.K. Mahraj, AC and SI/Min P.K. Dubey (PO) in Bharuch Court on the complainant. Now, the AC, CISF Unit ONGC Gandhar has verbally informed that the case/complaint has been withdrawn by the complainant from the Court. Accordingly, AC has been ordered to obtain relevant papers related to withdrawn of the complaint from the Court. The matter is under process. However; the matter related to mis-behavior by EO/PO with the civilians was entirely different matter and it was not connected to the charges which were levelled against the petitioner. Moreover, the case is pending in Bharuch Court. It was later known that in place of GD No. 620, OK report was written on the instructions of erstwhile AC, ONGC Gandhar. The charges which were enquired by EO and the mis-behavior with civilians by EO are purely different matters. Here the petitioner has tried to turn-up the mind of the authority to another case, but by writing such matter, he cannot escape himself from the charges/offence due to which he has been removed from service." This reading with the statement of Shri Rao and the independent communication to the superior officer i.e. D.I.G., would leave no room of doubt that the contention of the petitioner was correct and that would indicate that there was no opportunity to the petitioner and that has rendered the inquiry vitiated. 38. 38. It is also required to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner was justified in contending that page of General Diary of CISF Unit ONGC, produced at page No. 308, is the real page of the diary, whereas the insertion of the page showing the O.K. report, which is reproduced at page No. 309, cannot be said to be a part of the said diary, as the required column and its description is conspicuously absent and on that basis also it can well be said that said Shri Rao was correct in his submission in the discreet inquiry and say of the petitioner who claimed that the witnesses had come and they were scared away and were not examined, which amounted to vitiate the inquiry proceeding. 39. It is also pertinent to note here that the petitioner's appeal memo at page No. 160 contains unequivocal contention qua the aspect of tampering with the record and scaring his witnesses so as to deprive him of his right to be given an opportunity in accordance with the principle of natural justice. The appeal memo contains Annexure-4, which happened to be the statement of Shri Rao. Unfortunately, that has not been appreciated and tried to be glossed over, as could be seen from the comments, which also indicated that as there is a criminal case pending, the matter was sub judice. What was really examined and appreciated was whether on account of the said incident the principle of natural justice violated or not? The answer is clearly in affirmation and there is absolutely no manner of doubt in holding that there was blatant breach of the principle of natural justice, which deprived the petitioner of his right to examine the witnesses. As a result thereof, the orders of the disciplinary authority that of appellate and revisional authority are not tenable in eye of law. 40. This brings the Court to consider the submission of the counsel for the respondent that even if, in case there is finding qua inquiry being vitiated, whether the Court should not permit the department to start the inquiry at least from the stage where it was said to have been vitiated? The answer to this submission is required to be given in view of the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The answer to this submission is required to be given in view of the facts and circumstances of each and every case. We are mindful of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 : ( AIR 1994 SC 1074 ), that ordinarily the inquiry is when found to be vitiated on account of a technical default like non supply of the copy of the officer's report, the department cannot be deprived of its right to rectify the same and start afresh from that point of time. But question arises as to whether can the same be treated as Good, where the Court has come to the clear conclusion that department had the inquiry and the concerned I.O. and the P.O. and the respondent authorities have actually conducted themselves with sole and only motive for bringing about guilt on the part of the delinquent so as to dispense with his services and when such a motive has become evident from the perusal of the records and proceedings, the Court would not be justified in holding it to be a technical default. 41. We are conscious to make a distinction between a defect in the inquiry, which is called a technical defect and rendering it being mala fide, though the inquiry at the initial stage may not be mala fide at all, but the development of the event, as it is seen in the instant case dissuade the Court to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that the respondent be permitted to initiate the inquiry or continue the inquiry from the stage of examining the witnesses. It is also required to be noted that the passage of time, the nature of defect and the fact that the panchas, who were sought to be examined now would be available or not? All these questions also would really deserve to be considered for appreciating the submission qua permitting the inquiry to be conducted. 42. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision in case of Anand Narain Shukla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1923 . All these questions also would really deserve to be considered for appreciating the submission qua permitting the inquiry to be conducted. 42. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision in case of Anand Narain Shukla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1923 . The peculiar facts of the present case would indicate that the said judgment would have no applicability, as this inquiry cannot be called to be an inquiry defective simpliciter, as we have indicated the nature of development of the events and consistent approach on the part of all the concerned to see to it that a desire result is achieved, then such an attempt has rendered the entire proceeding vitiated and, therefore, it would be permitting premium over the wrong perpetrated by the concerned and that would rather deal a serious blow to the denying of justice and hence we are unable to accept the submission. 43. The decision cited at the bar qua the backwages are unfortunately having no applicability, so far as the peculiar facts of the present case is concerned. Besides, one needs to be mindful of the fact that in a service jurisprudence the concept of denial of backwages is not to be telescoped so as to equate the same with the jurisdiction enuring in labour matters. The employee, who has been wronged, when is said to have been wronged in Court of law, is entitled to receive all the benefits, which otherwise would have been enuring to him. Had there been no such order passed and, therefore, when there is no plea qua petitioner being engaged in any earning activities, there is no scope for denying consequential benefits and hence the same is granted, as if, the orders have not been passed. We hasten to add here that decisions and observations would not deter the department from taking action, if any, against the petitioner in case if the criminal matter results into conviction of the petitioner. As a result, the orders dated 14.04.2009, 24.06.2009 and 30.09.2009 are required to be quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and grant him all the consequential benefits, as if the impugned orders have not been passed at all. The petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. However, there shall be no order as to cost.