JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Hrishikesh Roy, J. Heard Ms. S. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant. The respondents are represented by Ms. U. Chakraborty, the learned standing counsel for the Railways. 2. The matter pertains to a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant who served as a Khalasi (TS) in the Office of the District Signal Telecommunication Engineers, N.F. Railway. The first termination order was issued against the employee on 14.09.1989 but this was not preceded by any charge memo or inquiry. The termination order however refers to the absence from duty by the employee, for a long period. 3. Long after the termination order of 14.09.1989, the charge memorandum was drawn up on 15.12.1992, under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and in that memo, the following article of charge was appended: “That the said Shri Sukdeb Das, while functioning as Khalasi (TS), during the period (definite and distinct article of charges), you have been absconding from duty since 10.11.1987 without any authority. Despite issue of DSTE/Con/SCL’s letter No.N/97/17/CON/SCL dt.7.7.89 for your reporting to duty within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of the letter, neither you reported for duty nor intimated in time your inability which is lack of devotion to duty as per para-I (II & III) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and such act on your part tantamounts to misconduct”. 4. A purported inquiry was held thereafter into the above charges on 24.2.1993 and 30.4.1993 and the Inquiry Officer A.K. Saha recorded the following findings: “………………….The charges framed against Sri Sukdeb Das, ex-kha (TS) under DSTE/CPM/SCL as mentioned in annexure I and II in standard form of charge-sheet served vide L/No.N/PC/CON/MLG/299 dated 15.12.92 and issued by DSTE/CON/MLG are found to be correct and proved”. 5. The disciplinary authority concurred with the enquiry findings and he passed an order on 6.6.1994, whereby the earlier termination ordered on 14.09.1989, was reiterated for the railway employee. 6. The above action against the railway khalasi led to an Industrial Dispute and a reference was drawn up under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the following terms: “Whether the action of the Management of N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati in dismissing the service of Shri Sukdeb Das, Ex. Khallashi and also denying Shri Das to resume duties is justified? If not, what relief Shri Das, Ex. Khallashi and also denying Shri Das to resume duties is justified? If not, what relief Shri Das, Ex. Khallashi is entitled to?”. 7. Before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Industrial Tribunal’), evidence were adduced by both parties. After evaluating them and noticing the infirmities in the evidence of the Management on the bonafide of the inquiry proceeding, the Presiding Officer, under his award dated 21.8.2007 concluded that the termination of the workman was unjustified. Thus the order for reinstatement of the railway khalasi was issued. But back-wages was not granted, as he had not performed any duties, during the relevant period. 8. The award of the Industrial Tribunal was challenged by the management through the WP(C) No.3441/2008 and the learned Single Judge noted the circumstances leading to the termination of the workman. The Court found that for the alleged misconduct, an inquiry should have been conducted with proper opportunity to the affected workman before penalizing the staff. Noticing further that a post-decisional inquiry was held after a hasty termination order, which led to confirmation of the earlier order of termination, the Tribunal’s award was set aside but with liberty to the Railways, to hold a de-novo inquiry, by furnishing article of charges to the workman. Thus the management’s writ petition was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge, under his judgment dated 23.7.2014 (Annexure-2). 9.1. Assailing the legality of the impugned judgment in the Writ Proceeding, Ms. S. Sharma, the learned counsel submits that when liberty was granted for a de-novo inquiry by furnishing the article of charges to the workman, proper charge memo must be framed before the fresh inquiry can be conducted. But in this case, the authorities have started the de-novo process without furnishing the charges. 9.2. The learned counsel cites the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. vs. Ananta Saha, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142 , to contend that when liberty was given to hold a fresh inquiry, it is not permissible for the management to proceed on the basis of the charge sheet, issued earlier and for the de-novo inquiry and a fresh charge memo is a pre-requisite for the new proceeding. 10. On the other hand, Ms. 10. On the other hand, Ms. U. Chakraborty, the learned standing counsel for the Railways refers to the communication dated 31.12.2014, issued in pursuant to the learned Single Judge’s verdict in the WP(C) No.3441/2008, to contend that the de-novo inquiry was held in pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court and she submits that the Inquiry Officer S. Sengupta gave the following finding on 13.3.2015: “……………………. (i) As per office record (Annexure-II, III & IV) and because of Sri Sukdeb Das could not able to produce any relevant documents in this connection in the enquiry, it is proved that he was unauthorized absent in duty since 10.11.87 to 29.11.87 and 02.12.87 to 31.01.87. (ii) He did not join to duty in time as per office order without showing any authentic medical documents. (iii) Sri Das was given opportunity for his resumption after long unauthorized absent by allowing him to obtain DFC from Railway Doctor by Railway Authority. But Sri Sukdeb Das had not turned up with the said certificate. Again DSTE/CON/SCL had given him opportunity to resume duty by issuing a letter to join duty within 30 days from the date of issue of the said letter no. N/97/17/CON/SCL dt.07.07.89 (Annexure-IV). In this case also Sri Das did not turn up. Being a Casual Labour (TS), he was given possible opportunities to sustain his service but he did not acted upon. Thus it proves that he was reluctant in resuming duty which is a great misconduct and disobedient to superior. There were lapses in the part of Sri Sukdeb Das. (iv) “The denovo enquiry has been done for his long unauthorized absent from official duty which has been proved and established”. 11. The above fact makes it clear that fresh charge memo was never prepared or furnished to the workman, in pursuant to the liberty granted by the judgment of 23.7.2014. Thus the de-novo inquiry is found to have disregarded the direction given by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, when the charges were not formulated and served to the party, the fresh proceeding runs counter to the judgment in Ananta Saha (Supra). 12. While the Industrial Tribunal under its award of 21.8.2007 ordered for reinstatement of the workman, on account of the management’s challenge to the award, the workman continues to be out of service. Moreover, when the charges were not formulated and served to the party, the fresh proceeding runs counter to the judgment in Ananta Saha (Supra). 12. While the Industrial Tribunal under its award of 21.8.2007 ordered for reinstatement of the workman, on account of the management’s challenge to the award, the workman continues to be out of service. However an interim order was passed in the present Appeal on 23.1.2015, whereby, the termination order of 14.09.1989, was stayed by the High Court. 13. What is significant here is that the original termination order of 14.09.1989 was not preceded by any charge memo or inquiry. In fact, a post-decisional inquiry was held in 1993 and a finding was purportedly recorded on 13.3.2015, on the unauthorized absence of the workman, for certain days in the year 1987. The reiteration of the termination order in pursuant to the post-decisional inquiry was found to be vitiated, by the Industrial Tribunal and thus reinstatement of the workman was ordered under the award dated 21.8.2007. But the workman continues to be out of job and has not been reinstated. That apart, the do-novo inquiry conducted in pursuant to the learned Single Judge’s order of 23.7.2014, is not in order since fresh charge memo was not prepared, as is needed for a de novo inquiry, under the ratio of Ananta Saha (Supra). In such backdrop, the legality of the disciplinary proceeding cannot now be judged on the basis of the finding in the de novo inquiry. The infirmities in the earlier portion of the proceedings are already delineated and they can have no legal sanction. 14. For the foregoing discussion, we hold that the disciplinary action is unsustainable, as the workman was not intimated of any charges for the de-novo proceeding. Moreover the earlier post-decisional inquiry cannot support the termination order of 14.09.1989. Therefore immediate reinstatement of the workman is ordered. As regards the back-wages, no service was received from him all this while, as the reinstatement order of the Industrial Tribunal was never implemented, in terms of the award dated 21.8.2007. Eventually the award itself came to be quashed by the High Court on 23.7.2014. Therefore immediate reinstatement of the workman is ordered. As regards the back-wages, no service was received from him all this while, as the reinstatement order of the Industrial Tribunal was never implemented, in terms of the award dated 21.8.2007. Eventually the award itself came to be quashed by the High Court on 23.7.2014. Therefore on this count, having regard to the travails of the workman for last many years, we order payment of 25% of the back-wages for the workman w.e.f. 23.7.2014, when the verdict was rendered by the learned Single Judge in the WP(C) No.3441/2008. It is ordered accordingly. 15. With the above direction this Writ Appeal stands allowed. Parties are to bear their own cost.