JUDGMENT : TASHI RABSTAN, J. A. LPASW No. 191 of 2005. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.04.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No.2298/2003, whereby while partly allowing the writ petition, orders dated 12.05.2003 and 23.04.2003, passed by the writ respondents, came to be quashed with a direction to them to treat the writ petitioner as on duty for the period he remained under suspension and to give him full emoluments. However, the Writ Court upheld the order dated 14.05.2002, by virtue of which the penalty of reduction to one lower stage in the time scale of pay with cumulative effect till date of retirement, has been imposed on petitioner. Consequently, the Writ Court upheld the order dated 27.01.2003, rejecting the appeal filed against the order dated 14.05.2002. The Writ Court also declined to accept the prayer of writ petitioner for expunging the adverse remarks on the ground that though writ petitioner placed on record a copy of letter dated 28.12.1999 communicating such remarks to him, yet he failed to place on record the adverse remarks. 2. Indisputably, writ petitioner came to be suspended on 14.10.1998, mainly on the charges of allegedly assaulting the complainant and not following the orders relating to maintenance of attendance register and office discipline. The Inquiry Officer concluded and submitted the Inquiry Report on 14.11.2000. On the basis of said Inquiry Report, the respondents vide order dated 14.05.2002 imposed the penalty of reduction to one lower stage in the time scale of pay with cumulative effect till date of retirement. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.04.2003 the period of suspension of writ petitioner with effect from 14.10.1998 to 06.07.2000 has not been counted as 'on duty', and the representation filed against the said order also came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2003. 3. Aggrieved of imposition of penalties and rejection of appeal, the writ petitioner knocked at portals of the Writ Court with SWP no.2298/2003. The Writ Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties, vide judgment dated 11.04.2005 partly allowed the writ petition. It is this judgment and order, against which instant appeal is preferred by writ petitioner, seeking setting aside thereof to the extent of upholding of orders dated 14.05.2002 and 27.01.2003. 4. We have heard and considered the rival contentions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 5. It is this judgment and order, against which instant appeal is preferred by writ petitioner, seeking setting aside thereof to the extent of upholding of orders dated 14.05.2002 and 27.01.2003. 4. We have heard and considered the rival contentions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 5. The first charge against the writ petitioner was that he along with others allegedly used vulgar and abusive language against the complainant and also physically assaulted him with a briefcase, which led to serious injury to the complainant. 6. A perusal of the Inquiry Report reveals that the preliminary investigation with respect to the aforesaid charge was carried out three times by three different officers. It mentions that the prosecution failed to produce original medical examination report of the complainant and that the original date of said report was 08.04.1998, which was subsequently amended to 08.10.1998. Thus, it was opined that the medical examination report of complainant was false and fabricated, even the said report also did not bear the signature of complainant. The Inquiry report further divulges that the complainant neither lodged any FIR with the local police nor reported the matter to his higher authorities, which itself suggests that neither the complainant was manhandled/hurt nor his medical examination was ever carried out. Not only this, even one eye-witness had deposed that actually it was the complainant who had lifted the briefcase with the intention to hit the writ petitioner, whereas the writ petitioner was trying to stop him. The Inquiry Report also makes it known that even other material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. 7. Even the Inquiry Officer had opined that after thorough inquiry/investigation it could not be confirmed that the writ petitioner along with others had used vulgar or filthy language against the complainant or that the writ petitioner hit the complainant with briefcase. 8. Thus, from the above, it comes to fore that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the writ petitioner. 9. The second charge against the writ petitioner was that he was not strictly following the orders for maintenance of attendance register and office discipline, rather he was acting contrary to the same. 10. 8. Thus, from the above, it comes to fore that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the writ petitioner. 9. The second charge against the writ petitioner was that he was not strictly following the orders for maintenance of attendance register and office discipline, rather he was acting contrary to the same. 10. As regards the second charge, the Inquiry Officer in the concluding remarks had not held the writ petitioner responsible for the same and he reported that it cannot be established that the tampering was carried out subsequent to the detection of irregularity by the LAO. He further reported that allegedly assaulting the complainant has also not been clearly established during the inquiry. 11. The third charge against the writ petitioner was that he questioned the authority of his superior regarding the disbursement of honorarium to the staff. 12. As regards the third charge, the Inquiry Officer had reported that the said issue should not be strictly taken as violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 13. Thus, from the above, it becomes manifest that the Inquiry Officer did not connect the writ petitioner with the alleged offence/charges. However, the Inquiry Officer while giving findings, has held that Charges-I & II against the writ petitioner have been partly proved, whereas Charge-III could not be proved. 14. Once the Inquiry Officer in the concluding remarks has clearly reported/opined that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the writ petitioner, then there seems to be no prudence in making a finding that Charges I & II against the writ petitioner have been partly proved, that too without giving any reasoning. The moment it has come on record in the inquiry that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the writ petitioner and that as per the deposition of eyewitness it was actually the complainant who had lifted the briefcase with the intention to hit the writ petitioner, we do not see any justification on the part of writ respondents in imposing the penalty of reduction to one lower stage in the time scale of pay with cumulative effect upon writ petitioner or not giving him full emoluments for the period he remained under suspension, unless there is direct and independent evidence against the writ petitioner irrespective of circumstantial evidence. 15. 15. For the reasons discussed above, the Appeal to the extent of quashing orders dated 14.05.2002 and 27.01.2003, is allowed and the said orders are hereby quashed. Connected miscellaneous petition(s), if any, is accordingly disposed of. B. LPASW No.151/2005 16. Appellants-Union of India has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No.2298/2003, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been partly allowed. 17. We have gone through the appeal. However, in view of allowing LPA No.191/2005, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected miscellaneous petition(s), if any.