JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Pratyush Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the first respondent. The petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in claim petition no.1012/2014. By means of order impugned, the learned Tribunal has set aside the punishment order as well as order passed in appeal and held that the first respondent/petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential service benefits including promotion which has been denied to him on account of these punishment orders. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that it is no doubt that the learned Tribunal has discussed the matter for giving liberty to the petitioners to conduct afresh inquiry, however, subsequently the Tribunal in terms of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society and others; (2013) 2 SCC 515 held that in cases of technically defective inquiry the Hon'ble Court has held that in such cases it is always open for the court to examine the case on merits as well, and in case the court comes to the conclusion that there was in fact no substance in the allegations, it may not permit the employer to hold a fresh enquiry and accordingly allowed the claim petition. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is a finding of the learned Tribunal itself that there has been violation of Rule 7 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 because neither any date, time and place have been fixed by inquiry officer for conducting the oral enquiry nor the charges were proved in presence of the first respondent/petitioner, nor the complainant was examined subjecting him to cross examination by the first respondent/petitioner and the enquiry in the matter suffers from grave procedural irregularity attracting the violation of the principle of natural justice and therefore, any punishment order passed on the basis of such a defective enquiry is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Prior to it learned Tribunal also held that no oral enquiry was conducted in the present case and the charges have been found proved on the basis of preliminary enquiry report. Prior to it learned Tribunal also held that no oral enquiry was conducted in the present case and the charges have been found proved on the basis of preliminary enquiry report. It is a settled legal position that in a regular departmental enquiry a preliminary enquiry report can not be relied on as a peace of evidence because that enquiry is only a fact finding enquiry. Whereas we are of the view that this finding is completely wrong as if the regular inquiry is based on the preliminary inquiry report, the preliminary inquiry can always be read over as a peace of evidence. Since the learned Tribunal has pointed out the procedural irregularity as above in conducting the inquiry, we, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Anant R. Kulkarni's case (supra), are of the view that the matter needs a fresh inquiry, therefore, we hereby quash the order impugned dated 16.07.2015 and remit the matter to the inquiry officer to proceed with the enquiry after the stage of filing of written submission and conclude the same in accordance with rules. Keeping in view the fact that during pendency of enquiry, the first respondent/petitioner has been superseded two times, it would be appropriate to observe that the inquiry officer shall conclude the inquiry subject to cooperation of the first respondent within two months from the date of communication of this order. In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition stands disposed of.