JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged, inter alia, the order of punishment dated 6.11.2007 passed by the disciplinary authority, Chief Executive Officer, CESU, opposite party no.2, vide Annexure-4, the order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-6 and the order dated 26.7.2013 passed by the reviewing authority, General Manager (HR), CESU, opposite party no.1, vide Annexure-8. An ancillary prayer has been made for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the consequential service benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Junior Engineer, Electrical appointed by the Central Electricity Supply Utility Limited (CESU). While functioning as Junior Manager (Electrical Section), Biridi, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The following are the charges levelled against him. “(a) In course of fact-finding enquiry conducted by C.V.O., CESU, it has been detected that illegal and un-authorised L.T. extension has been provided to the house of Sri Dusasan Bhoi of Village Ananta Brahmapur of your Electrical Section by effecting 3 Nos. of joists from the Canal Chhak of the said village. The first span was found too be 56 meters having A.B. Cables, the second span 84 meters with bare conductor and the third span 56 meters with bare conductor. The last pole has been erected in the land of Sri Dusasan Bhoi. But as ascertained from his neighbour Sri Sarbeswar Hati, service connection earlier provided was just disconnected in the morning of the day of inspection i.e. 11.11.2006 on the instruction of one Sadhu Jena of Biridi Electrical Section and another unidentified person. (b) Un-authorised connection was also detected to the house of Kuni Das wife of Sudhakar Das of Ananta Brahmapur. On being interrogated Kuni Das disclosed that he paid Rs.1500/-to Sadhu Jena of Biridi Section who arranged and provided un-metered power supply to her house. (c) As further detected 58 meter long un-authorised L.T. extension was also given to the house of Sri Dushasan Bhoi in your Section which was removed from the first span during verification by CVO as found illegal.” He submitted the defence statement denying the allegations. The disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer on 11.1.2007 to enquire into the charges. On 9.3.2007, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry, recorded the statement of the witnesses and concluded the same on the same day. The disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer on 11.1.2007 to enquire into the charges. On 9.3.2007, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry, recorded the statement of the witnesses and concluded the same on the same day. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report holding that charges are proved. The Chief Executive Officer dismissed the petitioner from services on 6.11.2007 vide Annexure-4. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman, Board of Management, CESU. The appellate authority set aside the order of dismissal, withheld three annual increments with cumulative effect, treated the period of dismissal as breach in service without remuneration for the said period and reinstated the petitioner in service by order dated 24.12.2007 vide Annexure-6. Being dissatisfied with the same, he filed review application, which was eventually dismissed on 26.7.2013 vide Annexure-8. With this factual scenario, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. The sum and substance of the case of the opposite parties is that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner while he was working as Junior Manager, Electrical Section, Biridi under JED, Jagatsinghpur. The charge-sheet was served on him. He submitted written statement of defence denying the charges. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer, after completion of enquiry, submitted the report. The disciplinary authority on consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer dismissed the petitioner from services. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of punishment. The appellate authority set aside the order of punishment and withheld three annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner has filed review petition before the reviewing authority. The reviewing authority finding no merit dismissed the said application. It is further stated that the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of the petitioner along with other witnesses. The petitioner admitted his negligence. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit. 4. Heard Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 5. Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was no way responsible for the alleged drawal of line to the house of Dusasan Bhoi. The allegations were not attributable to the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted on 9.3.2007 in an undue haste. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 5. Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was no way responsible for the alleged drawal of line to the house of Dusasan Bhoi. The allegations were not attributable to the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted on 9.3.2007 in an undue haste. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of Marshalling Officer and one helper. The petitioner was not provided any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. No document was relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in support of the allegations. The defence statement of the petitioner was not taken into account. The enquiry was conducted on the same day. Neither a copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner nor any 2nd show-cause notice was issued to him. In view of the same, the departmental proceeding is vitiated. He further submitted that though the Enquiry Officer came to hold that the alleged incident was within the knowledge of concerned S.D.O. and Manager (Electrical), but then no proceeding was initiated against them. He cited a decision of the apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2013) 3 SCC 73 , to buttress his submission that the doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. 6. Per contra, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. The Enquiry Officer afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After recording the statement of the witnesses, he submitted the report. On taking into consideration the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from services. On taking a holistic view of the matter, the appellate authority passed a lesser punishment to the petitioner and reinstated him in service. He submitted that the scope of interference in such type of matters is extremely limited. 7. Much reliance has been placed on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav (supra) by Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner. In paragraph 9 of the said report the apex Court held thus:- “The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. 7. Much reliance has been placed on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav (supra) by Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner. In paragraph 9 of the said report the apex Court held thus:- “The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.” The aforesaid decision is distinguishable on the facts. In the instant case, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against any of the employees of opposite parties in respect of self-same charges. 8. The Enquiry Officer came to a finding that the unauthorised extension work has been completed by the villagers to provide power supply to the house of Sri Dusasan Bhoi of village Ananta Brahmapur by effecting three nos. of joists from the canal chhack to the said village and the said fact was within the knowledge of the concerned JE, SDO and Manager (Elect.), Jagatsinghpur. The aforesaid officers could not submit any written statement of defence regarding unauthorised work and removal of first span during verification by CVO on 11.11.2006. He further held that the illegal and unauthorised LT extension work was executed by the villagers; but all the officers from the section to division knew the facts. The appellate authority set aside the order of punishment and reinstated the petitioner in service. The three annual increments with cumulative effect of the petitioner have been withheld by the appellate authority. The appellate authority held that the period of dismissal shall be treated as breach in service and no remuneration for the said period shall be paid. 9. From the enquiry report, it is crystal clear that the factum of supply of LT connection was within the knowledge of other officers and the LT extension was executed by the villagers. No reason has been assigned as to why disciplinary proceeding was not initiated against the said officers. 9. From the enquiry report, it is crystal clear that the factum of supply of LT connection was within the knowledge of other officers and the LT extension was executed by the villagers. No reason has been assigned as to why disciplinary proceeding was not initiated against the said officers. Furthermore neither the copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner; nor any 2nd show-cause notice was issued to him. On this score, the order of punishment is liable to be quashed and the matter ought to have been remitted back to the disciplinary authority. But then, the appellate authority took a lenient view of the matter, set aside the order of dismissal and reinstated the petitioner in service. 10. In view of the same, instead of remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority, the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority. The appellate authority shall do well to consider the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner within a period of three months and pass an appropriate order. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.