JUDGMENT Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.A. Faridi, learned counsel for the first respondent. The petitioner has assailed judgement and order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal in reference Claim Petition No.195 of 2010. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly given the finding that there was procedural defect in the inquiry whereas the inquiry was conducted in a fair manner by providing opportunity of hearing to the respondent. The contention raised by learned Standing counsel has been refuted by Mr. M.A. Faridi, learned counsel for the first respondent. He has submitted that the learned Tribunal has given a clear finding that there was latches on the part of the Inquiry Officer in providing opportunity of hearing to the first respondent in proper manner, therefore, the Tribunal has felt it appropriate to issue direction to the Inquiry Officer to conclude the inquiry afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties afresh. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we have examined the judgement and order impugned and found that the claimant-petitioner was provided proper opportunity of hearing during the course of disciplinary proceeding, moreover, the Tribunal has also not recorded any finding that no proper opportunity of hearing was provided. A bare perusal of judgement and order impugned shows that the Tribunal has remitted the matter for a fresh inquiry on the ground that the Inquiry Officer has failed to discuss about the role of officers, who had given the appointment / posting to the employees. The appointment / posting orders were issued by the Chief Engineer and other Executive Engineer but nothing has been discussed about their role in the matter and only the respondent-petitioner has been held responsible in the matter. Likewise, the other discrepancy has been reported by the Tribunal. Since, it is a case of recovery of amount and first respondent has been held responsible to cause loss to the state exchequer to the extent of recoverable amount, we are of the view that the Inquiry Officer should have discussed the role of other officers, who were involved in commission of such offence as well as the gravity of charges. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly remanded the matter to the Inquiry Officer for fresh inquiry after providing opportunity of hearing to the first respondent. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly remanded the matter to the Inquiry Officer for fresh inquiry after providing opportunity of hearing to the first respondent. Since time stipulated by the Tribunal for completion of inquiry has already been expired, it would be appropriate to provide that three months more time would be available to the petitioner to complete the inquiry afresh in terms of judgement and order dated 9th December, 2015 passed by the Tribunal in reference Claim Petition No.195/2010. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.