JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. Prayer is for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing Order No. 756 of 2010, dated 09.09.2010, Mandamus for directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to resume duty forthwith as also to release their salary, past and future as also to initiate a probe into the conduct of respondent No. 4 for non-compliance with the directions of this Court as also for harassing the petitioners. That as per averments in the writ petition, the petitioners as ex servicemen came to be recruited as constable's in the Police Department during the peak of militancy. Subsequently their status was changed and instead of the salary attached to the post of constable, they were paid consolidated salary of Rs. 1500/- per month which was enhanced from time to time and at the time of filing of the writ petition, they were being paid salary of Rs. 3000/- per month. It is also averred that the duty of the petitioners is the same as that of Constables in the police department. 2. Aggrieved against the change of status in service, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court, but this Court did not decide the status of the petitioners which compelled them to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the same was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to agitate their grievance's before the High Court. Pursuant thereto, SWP No. 1271/2010 was instituted and vide order Annexure P-1 dated 20.05.2010, the respondents were directed to maintain the status of the petitioners as Constables by taking note of the contention that the status of the petitioners as defined in Govt. Order No. 70 of 1993, dated February 12, 1993 as constables had been changed to SPO. It is further averred that despite the order having been served upon the respondents, respondent No. 4, became very harsh and inimical to the petitioners and eventually, passed Order No. ST/TRF/10/25364-71, dated 30.07.2010 i.e. Annexure P-2 not in public interest but solely on account of the petitioners having filed petitions before the Court for redress of their grievances. 3. It is further averred that despite the order having been served upon the respondents, respondent No. 4, became very harsh and inimical to the petitioners and eventually, passed Order No. ST/TRF/10/25364-71, dated 30.07.2010 i.e. Annexure P-2 not in public interest but solely on account of the petitioners having filed petitions before the Court for redress of their grievances. 3. That on the petitioners challenging the order of transfer, Annexure P-2 dated 30.07.2010 by way of SWP No. 1942/2010 interim order Annexure P-3 dated 13.08.2010 was passed directing that till further orders, in case the petitioners had not reported at present place of posting, impugned transfer order be kept in abeyance. 4. That another grievance is that in furtherance of the inimical attitude harboured by respondent No. 4, Fard-ilzam i.e. Annexure P-4 was issued to the petitioners for not having maintained discipline by not acting upon the transfer order. The petitioners denied the charge leveled in the Fard-ilzam by submitting that vide Court order Annexure P-3, dated 13.08.2010, the order transferring the petitioners i.e. Annexure P-2 dated 30.07.2010 had been kept in abeyance by the Hon'ble High Court, therefore the question of compliance with the order of transfer did not arise. 5. That it is contended that the bias of respondent No. 4 is evident from the appointment of the Additional SP Bhaderwah as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry against the petitioners. Pursuant to conduct of enquiry, the enquiry officer held the charges against the petitioners proved by holding that the delinquents had deliberately avoided performing duty by absenting unauthorisedly, besides, disobeying the orders of superiors and that the same amounted to grave misconduct. The Enquiry Officer also recommended that the delinquent's be disengaged from service. 6. That it is contended that the bias of respondent No. 4 was further evident from the fact that instead of obeying the order of this Court Annexure P-3 dated 13.08.2010, respondent No. 4 issued order Annexure P-6 dated 09.09.2010 passing order of termination of service of the petitioners pursuant to the departmental enquiry initiated by him against the petitioners whereas in view of the order of this Court Annexure P-3 dated 13.08.2010 that in case the petitioners had not reported at their present place of posting, the impugned order would be kept in abeyance, the very edifice for proceeding against the petitioners for violation of orders of transfer was non-existent. 7. 7. That in the objections to the writ petition, the stand is that the petitioners were working as SPO's on purely temporary basis on honorarium of Rs. 3000 per month, that the order putting the petitioners on consolidated wages was challenged by them by way of SWP No. 2132/2000 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2004. Appeal against the said order was also dismissed. Thereafter, SLP No. 26910/2005 was filed against the judgment dated 25.07.2005 but the same was withdrawn from the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.05.2007. Thereafter, the petitioners by misrepresenting fact's filed SWP No. 1271/2010 on the same grounds whereupon they were transferred vide order Annexure P-2 dated 30.07.2010 to DPL Doda as they had been deployed with protected persons for periods ranging from 6-17 years and were relieved by the SHO Bhaderwah vide DD No. 22, dated 23.08.2010, DD No. 13, dated 26.08.2010, DD No. 8, dated 08.08.2010 & DD No. 9, dated 30.07.2010, but they did not comply with the transfer order, accordingly, viewing the disobedience seriously, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioners, the enquiry report was considered, personal hearing given to the petitioners whereupon it stood established that the delinquent SPOs had deliberately avoided performing duty at their station of transfer and by disobeying the orders of superiors absented for which they were liable to be punished. The recommendations of the enquiry officer for termination of services of the petitioners were accepted by Respondent No. 4 i.e. Disciplinary Authority and they were disengaged, thus no cause of action had arisen in favour of the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court since they had been disengaged after a full fledged departmental enquiry. 8. That as per paragraph No. 3 of the objections, the petitioners were relieved before passing of order Annexure P-3 dated 13.8.2010 but the petitioners neither reported to the original place of posting nor to respondent No. 4, therefore, respondent No. 4 initiated departmental action against the petitioners eventually leading to passing of order of termination of service of the petitioners. 9. That undoubtedly, the Police is a disciplined force. Consequentially, discipline has to be maintained in a disciplined force at all costs. Any deviation there from has to be dealt with sternly. Therefore, the action of respondent No. 4 against non-compliance with the order of transfer etc. cannot be said to be without any basis. 9. That undoubtedly, the Police is a disciplined force. Consequentially, discipline has to be maintained in a disciplined force at all costs. Any deviation there from has to be dealt with sternly. Therefore, the action of respondent No. 4 against non-compliance with the order of transfer etc. cannot be said to be without any basis. However, it appears that the action initiated against the petitioners was for having dragged the department into litigation. Besides, once a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioners then in that eventuality, it was incumbent upon respondent No. 4 to have forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioners to enable them to file objections, if any, to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and in case of submission of any such objections, it was incumbent upon respondent No. 4 to have considered the same along with the enquiry report before passing any orders. However, the impugned order does not reflect such a course having been adopted. The enquiry report records the petitioners having disobeyed the orders of transfer and thereby absenting without dealing with the plea of stay having been granted vide Annexure P-3 dated 13.08.2010 therefore the question of their being non compliance with the order of transfer not arising. Therefore the petitioners were prejudiced since they were not supplied a copy of the enquiry report and were therefore not aware of the findings recorded against them. Consequentially, the impugned order is legally unsustainable in view of law, well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar, 1994 (Supp.) SCC 391 as well as the reasons recorded hereunder. 10. Relevant extract of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Karunakar's case (Supra) is reproduced hereunder: "30(v). The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the Inquiry Officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the Inquiry Officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. 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. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to a "unnatural expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice." "31. Hence, in all cases where the Inquiry Officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Court/Tribunal, and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. If after hearing the parties, the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to short-cuts. Since it is the Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only if the Courts/Tribunals find that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that should set aside the order of punishment. Where after following the above procedure the Courts/Tribunals sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority, management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the report should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the correct position in law." "57. The reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the report should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the correct position in law." "57. The findings or recommended punishment by the enquiry officer are likely to affect the mind of the disciplinary authority in his concluding the guilt or penalty to be imposed. The delinquent is, therefore, entitled to meet the reasoning, controvert the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer or is entitled to explain the effect of the evidence recorded. Unless the copy of the report is supplied to him, he would be in dark to know the findings, the reasons in support thereof or nature of the recommendation on penalty. He would point out all the factual or legal errors committed by the enquiry officer. He may also persuade the disciplinary authority that the finding is based on no evidence or the relevant material evidence was not considered or overlooked by the enquiry officer in coming to the conclusions, with a view to persuade the disciplinary authority to disagree with the enquiry officer and to consider his innocence of the charge, or even that the guilt as to the misconduct has not been established on the evidence on record or disabuse the initial impression formed in the minds of the disciplinary authority on consideration of the enquiry report. Even if the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that charge or charges is/are proved, the case may not warrant imposition of any, penalty. He may plead mitigating or extenuating circumstances to impose no punishment or a lesser punishment. For this purpose the delinquent needs reasonable opportunity or fair play in action. The supply of the copy of the report is neither an empty formality, nor a ritual, but aims to digress the direction of the disciplinary authority from his derivative conclusions from the report to the palliative path of fair consideration. The denial of the supply of the copy, therefore, causes to the delinquent a grave prejudice and avoidable injustice which cannot be cured or mitigated in appeal or at a challenge under Art. 226 of the Constitution or S. 19 of the Tribunal Act or other relevant provisions. The denial of the supply of the copy, therefore, causes to the delinquent a grave prejudice and avoidable injustice which cannot be cured or mitigated in appeal or at a challenge under Art. 226 of the Constitution or S. 19 of the Tribunal Act or other relevant provisions. Ex post facto opportunity does not efface the past impression formed by the disciplinary authority against the delinquent, however, professedly to be fair to the delinquent. The lurking suspicion always lingers in the mind of the delinquent that the disciplinary authority was not objective and he was treated unfairly. To alleviate such an impression and to prevent injustice or miscarriage of justice at the threshold, the disciplinary authority should supply the copy of the report, consider objectively the records, the evidence, the report and the explanation offered by the delinquent and make up his mind on proof of the charge or the nature of the penalty. The supply of the copy of the report is thus, a sine qua non for a valid, fair, just and proper procedure to defend the delinquent himself effectively and efficaciously. The denial thereof is offending not only Art. 311(2) but also violates Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution". "60. Section 44 of the Forty second Amendment Act done away with supply of the copy of the report on the proposed punishment but was not intended to deny fair, just and reasonable opportunity to the delinquent, but to be a reminder to the disciplinary authority that he is still not absolved of his duty to consider the material on records, the evidence along with the report, but before he does so, he must equally accord to the delinquent, a fair and reasonable opportunity of his say on the report when the disciplinary authority seeks to rely there on." "61. It is now settled law that the proceedings must be just, fair and reasonable and negation thereof offend Arts. 14 and 21. It is well settled law that principle of natural justice are integral part of Art. 14. No decision prejudicial to a party should be taken without affording an opportunity or supplying the material which is the basis for the decision. The enquiry report constitutes fresh material which has great persuasive force or effect on the mind of the disciplinary authority. It is well settled law that principle of natural justice are integral part of Art. 14. No decision prejudicial to a party should be taken without affording an opportunity or supplying the material which is the basis for the decision. The enquiry report constitutes fresh material which has great persuasive force or effect on the mind of the disciplinary authority. The supply of the report along with the final order is like a post-mortem certificate with purifying odour. The failure to supply copy thereof to the delinquent would be unfair procedure offending not only Arts. 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution, but also, the principles of natural justice. The contention on behalf of the Govt./management that the report is not evidence adduced during such enquiry envisaged under proviso to Art. 311(2) is also devoid of substance. It is settled law that Evidence Act has no application to the enquiry conducted during the disciplinary proceedings. The evidence adduced is not in strict conformity with Indian Evidence Act, though the essential principle of fair play envisaged in the Evidence Act are applicable. What was meant by 'evidence, in the proviso to Art. 311(2) is the totality of the material collected during the enquiry including the report of the enquiry officer forming part of that material. Therefore, when reliance is sought to be placed, by the disciplinary authority, on the report of the enquiry officer for proof of the charge or for imposition of the penalty, then it is incumbent that the copy thereof should be supplied before reaching any conclusion either on proof of the charge or the nature of the penalty to be imposed on the proved charge or on both". "62. Shri P.P. Rao obviously realising this effect, contended that the enquiry officer being a delegate of the disciplinary authority is not bound by the delegatee's recommendations and it is not a material unless it is used by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the need to its supply does not arise and the principles of natural justice need not be extended to that stage as the officer/workman had opportunity at the enquiry. Therefore, the need to its supply does not arise and the principles of natural justice need not be extended to that stage as the officer/workman had opportunity at the enquiry. In support thereof he placed strong reliance on Suresh Koshy George vs. University of Kerala, (1969) 1 SCR 317 : AIR 1969 SC 198 ; Shadi Lal Gupta vs. State of Punjab, (1973) 3 SCR 637 : AIR 1973 SC 1124 ; Hira Nath Misra vs. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi, AIR 1973 SC 1260 ; Satyavir Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 555 ; Secretary, Central Board of Excise and Customs vs. K.S. Mahalingam, (1986) 2 SCR 742 : AIR 1987 SC 1919 and Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) Suppl. 2 SCR 131 : AIR 1985 SC 1416 . I am unable to agree with his contentions. Doubtless that the enquiry officer is a delegate of the disciplinary authority, he conducts the enquiry into the misconduct and submits his report, but his findings or conclusions on the proof of charges and his recommendations on the penalty would create formidable impressions almost to be believed and acceptable unless they are controverted vehemently by the delinquent officer. At this stage non-supply of the copy of the report to the delinquent would cause him grave prejudice, S.K. George's case AIR 1969 SC 198 , renders no assistance. It is only an enquiry against malpractice at an examination conducted by the University under executive instruction. Therein the students were given an opportunity of hearing and they were supplied with all the material, the foundation for the report. The observations of the Bench of two Judges with regard to the theory of two stages in the enquiry under Art. 311 also bears little importance for the foregoing consideration in this case. It is already seen that this court held that the enquiry from the stage of charge-sheet till the stage of punishment is a continuous one and cannot be split into two. The reliance in The Kesava Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1973) 3 SCR 22 : AIR 1973 SC 389 , is also of no avail. Therein it was pointed out that under S. 18-A of the I.D.R. Act there was no scope of enquiry at two stages and the omission to supply enquiry report, before taking the action did not vitiate the ultimate decision taken. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1973) 3 SCR 22 : AIR 1973 SC 389 , is also of no avail. Therein it was pointed out that under S. 18-A of the I.D.R. Act there was no scope of enquiry at two stages and the omission to supply enquiry report, before taking the action did not vitiate the ultimate decision taken. In Shadi Lal's case AIR 1973 SC 1124 , Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules does not provide for the supply of copy of the report of an enquiry conducted by the fact finding authority before enquiry. It was held that the delinquent officer was supplied with all the materials and was given opportunity to make representation and the same was considered. The report did not indicate anything in addition to what was already supplied to him. Under those circumstances it was held that the principle of natural justice cannot be put into an iron cast or a straight jacket formula. Each case has to be considered and the principles applied in the light of the facts in each case. The effect of the violation of the principle of natural justice on the facts of the case on hand needs to be considered and visualised. The effect of Tulsiram Patel's ratio was considered by my brother Sawant, J. and it needs no reiteration. The reliance on S.K. George's case AIR 1969 SC 198 in Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416 ratio renders no assistance in the light of the above discussion. Since Mahalingam's case AIR 1987 SC 1919 which was after the Forty second Amendment Act, the need to supply second show cause notice was dispensed with regarding punishment, and therefore, that ratio renders no assistance to the case. Hira Nath Misra's case AIR 1973 SC 1260 also, is of no avail since the enquiry was conducted relating to misbehaviour with the girl students by the erring boys. The security of the girls was of paramount consideration and, therefore, the disclosure of the names of the girl students given in the report or their evidence would jeopardise their safety and so was withheld. Accordingly this court on the facts situation upheld the action of the Medical College. Satyavir Singh's AIR 1986 SC 555 ratio also is of no assistance as the action was taken under proviso to Art. 311(2) and Rule 199 of the CCA. Accordingly this court on the facts situation upheld the action of the Medical College. Satyavir Singh's AIR 1986 SC 555 ratio also is of no assistance as the action was taken under proviso to Art. 311(2) and Rule 199 of the CCA. Rules. The enquiry into insubordination by police force was dispensed with as the offending acts of the police force would generate deleterious effect on the discipline of the service. Asthana's case AIR 1988 SC 1338 was considered by my brother Sawant, J. in which the report was not supplied and it was upheld. It should, thus be concluded that the supply of the copy of the enquiry report is an integral part of the penultimate stage of the enquiry before the disciplinary authority considers the material and the report on the proof of the charge and the nature of the punishment to be imposed. Non-compliance is denial of reasonable opportunity, violating Art. 311(2) and unfair, unjust and illegal procedure offending Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice." 11. That here it would be relevant to refer to the report produced by learned AAG as was submitted by the enquiry officer i.e. Addl. Superintendent of Police, Bhaderwah:- "Office of the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Bhaderwah Finding These are the papers of D/E enquiry held against the below mentioned SPO's regarding their non-compliance of order and unauthorized absence from legitimate duty. (01) EXD SPO Janki Nath No. 2613/SPO. (02) EXD SPO Mohinder Singh No. 2579/SPO. (03) EXD SPO Ghulam Hassan No. 2633/SPO. (04) EXD SPO Hari Krishen No. 2636/SPO. (05) EXD SPO Mohd. Iqbal No. 2568/SPO. (06) EXD SPO Rajinder Kumar No. 2620/SPO. (07) EXD SPO Mohd. Sharief No. 2565/SPO. (08) EXD SPO Krishen Lal No. 2598/SPO. (09) EXD SPO Mohan Singh No. 2572/SPO. (10) EXD SPO Manohar Lal No. 2605/SPO. Brief facts which led to the enquiry are that the above mentioned SPO's were transferred to DPL Doda from their respective places of posting vide DPO Doda's order No. SPO/Trf/10/25364-71, dated 30.07.2010 and signal No. SPO/Trf/10/25198-207, dated 29.07.2010. Nine SPO's namely (01) EXD SPO Janki Nath No. 2613/SPO (02) EXD SPO Mohinder Singh No. 2579/SPO (03) EXD SPO Ghulam Hassan No. 2633/SPO (04) EXD SPO Hari Krishen No. 2636/SPO (05) EXD SPO Mohd. Iqbal No. 2568/SPO (06) EXD SPO Rajinder Kumar No. 2620/SPO (07) EXD SPO Mohd. Nine SPO's namely (01) EXD SPO Janki Nath No. 2613/SPO (02) EXD SPO Mohinder Singh No. 2579/SPO (03) EXD SPO Ghulam Hassan No. 2633/SPO (04) EXD SPO Hari Krishen No. 2636/SPO (05) EXD SPO Mohd. Iqbal No. 2568/SPO (06) EXD SPO Rajinder Kumar No. 2620/SPO (07) EXD SPO Mohd. Sharief No. 2565/SPO (08) EXD SPO Krishen Lal No. 2598/SPO (09) EXD SPO Mohan Singh No. 2572/SPO (10) EXD SPO Manohar Lal No. 2605/SPO were relieved vide DDR No. 08, dated 08.08.2010 with the direction to report their place of posting where as one SPO namely Behari Lal No. 2575/SPO and Mohan Singh No. 2572/SPO were relieved on 02.08.2010 and 30.07.2010 respectively. All the SPO's instead of joining their new place of posting absented themselves unauthorizedly and did not care the order of their superiors. Despite lapse of 10, 18 & 15 days respectively, the above mentioned transferees had not reported in DPL Doda except SPO Behari Lal No. 2575/SPO, who reported on 03.08.2010 deposited his service weapon and deserted from DPL Doda. Accordingly, he was marked absent vide DDR No. 22, dated 03.08.2010. The remaining 10 SPO's who were supposed to join in DPL Doda on 09.08.2010 had not reported neither in DPL Doda nor at P/S, Bhaderwah and are absconding along with weapons. This lapse on the part of these SPO's amounts to the non-compliance of order and un-authorized absent from legitimated duty, because their suitable substitutes stands already deployed and relieved from DPL Doda who have joined their new place of posting. Moreover these SPO's were deployed with protected persons since a long time i.e., more than six years and some of them are since 17 years and they needs to be transferred to somewhere in DPL Doda for further duties. All the SPO's were informed by MHC P/S Bhaderwah about their transfer and all of them were directed by the MHC to report their new place of posting forthwith and in this connection there report of departure has also been entered vide DDR No. 08, dated 08.08.2010, DDR No. 14, dated 02.08.2010 and DDR No. 09, dated 30.07.2010 but none of the SPO's compliance the order and failed to join their new place of posting deliberately, disobey order of senior officers. Non-compliance of orders in disciplined force is treated to be serious service misconduct for which a D/E was ordered vide DPO Doda letter No. SPO/Enq/10/27580-81, dated 17.08.2010 to be conducted by the under signed. To proceed further all of these SPO's served with summary of allegation to which they do not plead their guilty. On the basis of evidence they were charge-sheeted in reply to their charge sheet all these SPO's submitted in writing a same story that they were posted as PSO's with protected persons. They further stated that they have not been informed about their order of transfer and also submitted that a false report had been entered in daily diary of P/S, Bhaderwah regarding their transfer etc. I have gone through the enquiry papers as well as reply submitted by the delinquent SPO's, I am of the opinion that the plea taken by the delinquent SPO's is not satisfactory. However, all these SPO's were called in my office for verbal hearing but they failed to submit any reply, in support of their allegation. During the course of enquiry, it has been established that the delinquent SPO's deliberately avoid to perform their duties in their new place of posting and absented un-authorizedly and also disobey the order of their superiors which is a matter of great concern and also against the rule and regulation for which all these SPO's are liable to be punished for non-compliance of order in disciplined force is not only a serious service misconduct by these SPO's but also a stigma on the part of the police. The statements of MHC P/S Bhaderwah, MHC/Line Officer DPL Doda were recorded and DD copies were also got collected in this connection. Under these circumstance, it is recommended that the following SPO's namely (01) EXD SPO Janki Nath No. 2613/SPO (2) EXD SPO Mohinder Singh No. 2579/SPO (03) EXD SPO Hari Krishen No. 2636/SPO (4) EXD SPO Ghulam Hassan No. 2633/SPO (5) EXD SPO Mohd. Iqbal No. 2568/SPO (6) EXD SPO Rajinder Kumar No. 2620/SPO (7) EXD SPO Mohd. Sharief No. 2565/SPO (8) EXD SPO Krishen Lal No. 2598/SPO (9) EXD SPO Mohan Singh No. 2572/SPO (10) EXD SPO Manohar Lal No. 2605/SPO may kindly be DIS-ENGAGED from this services as their services is no more require because of non-compliance of orders and maybe directed to deposit their weapons. Sharief No. 2565/SPO (8) EXD SPO Krishen Lal No. 2598/SPO (9) EXD SPO Mohan Singh No. 2572/SPO (10) EXD SPO Manohar Lal No. 2605/SPO may kindly be DIS-ENGAGED from this services as their services is no more require because of non-compliance of orders and maybe directed to deposit their weapons. EXD SPO Behari Lal No. 2575/SPO has already been absented from DPL Doda and has not reported in my office for finalization of enquiry despite of clear direction by he may also be DIS-ENGAGED from his service. MHC P/S Bhaderwah had not intimated Dy. DAR or Lines Officer DPL Doda regarding the relieving of these SPO's. He had intimated through Signal on 19.08.2010 to DPO/PCR Doda. He also failed to affix the signature of these SPO's on the extract of Daily Diary of Police Station, Bhaderwah while relieving them from P/S Bhaderwah. A separate department/action for this misconduct may kindly be ordered to be initiated against MHC P/S Bhaderwah. All these SPO's have also been directed to deposited their A/A/uniform articles in DPL Kot/Store Doda. In case of non-compliance an action under law will be taken against them. The enquiry papers are enclosed herewith for favour of kind perusal and further order please. No. ASPB/DE/SPO's/10/7985 Dated:- 08.09.2010 Additional Superintendent of Police, Bhaderwah Encl. 84...Lvs. In originals Copy to:- (1) The Sr. Superintendent of Police Doda for favour of kind perusal and further order please (along with enquiry papers). Additional Superintendent of Police, Bhaderwah." 12. That a perusal of the enquiry report reveals that the enquiry officer proceeded solely on the basis that pursuant to the transfer of the petitioners (except petitioner Nos. 2, 10 & 11) the petitioners instead of joining their new place of Posting absented themselves un-authorizedly and did not report in DPL Doda except SPO Behari Lal-petitioner No. 2, who deposited the arms but thereafter deserted whereupon he was marked absent vide DD No. 22 dated 03.08.2010. The remaining ten SPO's, who were supposed to join in DPL Doda on 09.08.2010, neither reported in DPL Doda nor Police Station, Bhaderwah whereas their substitutes already stood relieved from DPL Doda and had joined their new place of posting. Aforementioned action was treated as disobedience of orders of senior officers and as a serious misconduct in a disciplined force. The remaining ten SPO's, who were supposed to join in DPL Doda on 09.08.2010, neither reported in DPL Doda nor Police Station, Bhaderwah whereas their substitutes already stood relieved from DPL Doda and had joined their new place of posting. Aforementioned action was treated as disobedience of orders of senior officers and as a serious misconduct in a disciplined force. The enquiry officer recorded that despite hearing the delinquents had failed to submit any reply in respect of the allegations, during the course of enquiry, it had been established that the delinquent SPO's had deliberately avoided performing duty at the new place of posting by absenting unauthorizedly and also disobeyed the order's of their superiors, the defence of the delinquent SPO's was not satisfactory, therefore all the SPO's were liable to be punished for non-compliance of orders in a disciplined force as it was not only a serious misconduct by the SPO's but also a stigma on the part of the police. In the circumstances, the enquiry officer recommended that the SPO's be disengaged from service as no more required and they be directed to deposit their weapons. Enquiry officer also recorded that MHC P/S Bhaderwah had not intimated Deputy DAR or Lines Officer DPL Doda regarding relieving of the SPO's and had intimated through Signal on 19.08.2010 to DPO/PCR Doda. He had also failed to affix the signature of the said SPO's on the extract of Daily Diary of Police Station, Bhaderwah while relieving them from Police Station Bhaderwah, therefore, a separate departmental action for this misconduct was required to be initiated against MHC P/S Bhaderwah. 13. That pursuant to the submission of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority recorded that he had gone through the enquiry file and agreeing with the recommendation of the enquiry officer ordered disengagement of the SPO's from service with immediate effect. Respondent No. 4 i.e. Sr. Superintendent of Police Doda also recorded that since the SPO's mentioned at S. No. 1 to 10 of the order had deserted the arms and ammunition issued to them from District Armory Doda, a case be registered against them for the recovery of the arms and ammunition from the delinquent SPO's. 14. Respondent No. 4 i.e. Sr. Superintendent of Police Doda also recorded that since the SPO's mentioned at S. No. 1 to 10 of the order had deserted the arms and ammunition issued to them from District Armory Doda, a case be registered against them for the recovery of the arms and ammunition from the delinquent SPO's. 14. That the categorical stand of the petitioners is that pursuant to their having invoked the jurisdiction of the Court for the redressal of their grievance with regard to maintenance of their status as Constables, the petitioners were subjected to harassment and eventually order dated 30.07.2010 came to be passed by respondent No. 4 showing the petitioners to have been transferred from their then place of posting on the ground that the petitioners had approached the Hon'ble High Court and were harassing the department by filing the writ petition. A perusal of order Annexure P-2 dated 30.07.2010 is self speaking. Relevant extract of the order dated 30.07.2010 is reproduced hereunder: ORDER: "The following Ex-Serviceman had filed writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court J & K which was dismissed in the single bench subsequently in double bench of J & K High Court on the ground they cannot invoice the principal of equal pay for equal work as they have been appointed on contractual basis later on the Ex-serviceman filed petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and got the order for withdrawal of petition and permission of filing of fresh petition in the Hon'ble High Court of J & K. Now the Ex-serviceman have filed the fresh petition in the Hon'ble High Court J & K in the same grounds. This way the Ex-serviceman have kept the department unnecessary engaged in filing the objection to the carious petition filed by the them which are baseless and have also wasted the lot of time of the department. This way the Ex-serviceman have kept the department unnecessary engaged in filing the objection to the carious petition filed by the them which are baseless and have also wasted the lot of time of the department. Moreover the Ex-serviceman are deployed with protected persons since a long time i.e. more than six years and some of them are since 17 years and get ample time to file such baseless petition in the Courts, so keeping in view the above circumstances the below mentioned Ex-serviceman hereby transferred to DPL, Doda with immediate effect." The submission of the petitioners that the order of transfer was issued by respondent No. 4 by way of ill will cannot in the facts and circumstances of the case be brushed aside. It is further contended that on the petitioners challenging the transfer order by way of SWP No. 1942/2010 interim order was passed in their favour on 13.08.2010. Relevant extract of the same is reproduced hereunder:- "Till further orders, in case the petitioners have not reported at present place of posting, the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-2) shall be kept in abeyance." 15. That it is also the categorical stand of the petitioners that despite orders dated 13.08.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court having been served on respondent No. 4 along with notice, respondent No. 4 became very harsh on the petitioners and started adopting pressure and harassment tactics. Relevant extract of paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition (SWP No. 2226/2010) is reproduced hereunder:- "The order of transfer issued by Respondent No. 4 being apparently based on ill will apart from being unconstitutional and illegal is also non est in the eyes of law. The petitioners, therefore, challenged the said order of transfer before this Hon'ble Court by virtue of writ petition bearing SWP No. 1942/2010 and the Hon'ble Court accordingly passed interim order on 13.08.2010 in pursuance of which the said transfer order has been kept in abeyance and therefore, the petitioners' present place of posting could not get changed because of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court supra. The respondents in the instant petition have been put on notice and the order passed by this Hon'ble Court was served to them by the petitioners dasti as well alongwith notices, the copy of the order is enclosed as Annexure P-3. The respondents in the instant petition have been put on notice and the order passed by this Hon'ble Court was served to them by the petitioners dasti as well alongwith notices, the copy of the order is enclosed as Annexure P-3. The respondent No. 4 became very harsh due to unknown reasons upon the petitioners and start adopting pressure and harassment tacts against the petitioners and also stopped their salaries." Paragraph No. 3 of para-wise reply of the objections is reproduced hereunder: "That the contents of para-4 which are contrary to official record are denied. It is further submitted that the order of abeyance of the transfer issued by the Hon'ble Court was received in the office of the respondent No. 4 much after the petitioners had already been relieved from their original place of posting. The order dated 13.08.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Court in SWP No. 1942/10 had ordered that in case the petitioners had not reported at present place of posting, the impugned transfer order shall be kept in abeyance. In the present case the petitioners had been relieved before passing of the order dated 13.08.2010. The petitioners consequently neither reported to the original place of posting nor reported to the respondent No. 4 for necessary action as such, the petitioners after having been unauthorized absent and for willfully disobeying the orders of the superior officers, constrained the respondent No. 4 to initiate departmental action." 16. That a perusal thereof reveals that the respondents proceeded on the assumption that since the petitioners had been relieved from their original place of posting and order Annexure P-3 directing keeping order of transfer in abeyance had been received by the office of respondent No. 4 thereafter therefore, they were willfully disobeying the order of the Superior Officers and un-authorizedly absenting for which they were proceeded against departmentally. 17. The fact remains that once the order dated 13.08.2010 had been passed directing that in case the petitioners had not reported at their present place of posting then in that case, the impugned transfer order would be kept in abeyance. The interim order was passed by taking into account the submissions that the order of transfer on the face of it had not been passed in the interest of administration but on account of malice. 18. The interim order was passed by taking into account the submissions that the order of transfer on the face of it had not been passed in the interest of administration but on account of malice. 18. Once it is the admitted position that the petitioners had not joined at their (present) new place of posting, then impugned transfer order was required to be kept in abeyance in terms of the order of this Court dated 13.08.2010. However, the same was not done. The Enquiry Officer gave a finding against the petitioners and forwarded copy of the enquiry report to the Superintendent of Police, Doda for further action who in turn passed an order on the same on the very next day i.e. 09.09.2010. The enquiry report was only marked to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda while passing the impugned order did not ensure that copy of the enquiry report had been supplied to the petitioners and they had the opportunity to file objections with regard to the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in his report dated 08.09.2010. Neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority took into account the plea that the order of transfer was required to be kept in abeyance on account of the petitioners not having joined at their new place of posting in view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 13.08.2010. That in the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the plea that the petitioners were prejudiced on denial of supply of enquiry report and consequential non grant of opportunity to put forth their defence by filing objections in respect of the finding recorded therein before consideration of the same by the disciplinary authority, merits acceptance. The petitioners had a right to file objections to the finding recorded in the enquiry report and show that the findings recorded in the enquiry report were not correct. It was only after they had submitted objections to the findings recorded by the enquiry officer on being supplied with a copy of the enquiry report that the objections and the enquiry report were to be considered by the disciplinary authority and decision taken in respect thereto thereafter. The same not having been done, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above. The same not having been done, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above. Accordingly, impugned order dated 09.09.2010 is set aside. Petitioners are ordered to be reinstated to the post which they were holding with liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the enquiry by placing the petitioners under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing the petitioners a copy of the enquiry report in the manner indicated in the judgment cited supra. In terms of paragraph 31 of the aforesaid judgment, the question whether the petitioners would be entitled to back-wages and other benefits from the date of their disengagement to the date of their reinstatement if ultimately ordered, is left open to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority in accordance with law, after the culmination of the proceedings and subject to the final outcome of the proceedings to be conducted. If the petitioners succeed in the inquiry and are directed to be reinstated by the Disciplinary Authority, the said authority would decide in accordance with law as to how the period from the date of disengagement of the petitioners till their reinstatement is to be treated and to what benefits, if any, the petitioners would be entitled to. The reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of the impugned order for failure to furnish the enquiry report is strictly a reinstatement for the purpose of holding a fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more. It would also be open to the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision in accordance with law even in the eventuality of disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and agreeing with the objections of the petitioner, that reinstatement of the petitioners would not be appropriate, regard being had to the overall circumstances of the case including outcome of criminal case if any pending against the petitioners. However, the aforesaid observations be not taken as an expression on the merits of the case with regard to the rights of the petitioners to be determined subject to the outcome of the conclusion of the proceedings by the Disciplinary Authority after following procedure stipulated in paragraph 31 of the judgment cited supra and the observations made above. However, the aforesaid observations be not taken as an expression on the merits of the case with regard to the rights of the petitioners to be determined subject to the outcome of the conclusion of the proceedings by the Disciplinary Authority after following procedure stipulated in paragraph 31 of the judgment cited supra and the observations made above. Needful be done in accordance with law within 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Writ petition allowed in aforementioned terms.