JUDGMENT AND ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the appellants and Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 16.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6908/2003. The appellants having initiated action against the respondent by issue of the Article of Charge dated 11.01.1997 had concluded the proceedings and through the order dated 24.09.1997 had dismissed the respondent from service of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF in short). The respondent claiming to be aggrieved by the same had preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority through the order dated 14.02.1998 had upheld the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the revisional authority also had dismissed the revision through the order dated 03.04.1999. It is in that circumstance, the respondent had approached this Court in the writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge while taking note of the rival contentions, had kept in perspective Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and in that light, taking note of the procedure as contemplated thereunder, was of the opinion that the enquiry proceedings is vitiated in as much as the Presenting Officer had not been appointed and further the respondent herein had not been provided an opportunity to file his reply in the enquiry proceedings and therefore, the learned Single Judge had set aside the order passed by the appellants and had directed reinstatement with benefits as indicated and 50% of the back wages. The appellants, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved are this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Single Judge has erred in his conclusion in as much as the need for appointing a Presenting Officer cannot be considered as mandatory and it is also his contention that the charge being that the respondent had submitted a fake Court judgment dated 11.10.1993, no other opportunity was required to the respondent to file any reply. It is his further contention that the non-appointment of the Presenting Officer can be considered as a flaw only if the facts of the case indicate that the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer has prejudiced the case of the employee concerned. It is his further contention that the non-appointment of the Presenting Officer can be considered as a flaw only if the facts of the case indicate that the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer has prejudiced the case of the employee concerned. In that light, it is contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified in the conclusion and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent herein has also referred to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge has not only taken into consideration the factual aspects and on analyzing has arrived at a conclusion that prejudice has been caused to the respondent herein as he had not been provided an opportunity and it is in that light the learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority which had been confirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority. The learned counsel would again bring to our notice Rule 27 of the Rules 1955 to contend the procedure that is contemplated would include the appointment of the Presenting Officer and also an opportunity to be provided to the employee concerned before the enquiry is concluded. Hence the learned counsel would contend that the learned Single Judge having adverted to all these aspects and having passed the order in that regard, the same would not call for interference. 6. In the light of the contentions, we have taken into consideration the Article of Charge, whereby it has been alleged that the respondent had submitted a judgment dated 11.10.1993 purported to have been delivered by the CJM, Sitamarhi in the office of Officer Commanding F/27th BN CRPF on 14.11.1993. The allegation of the appellants is that the said judgment had been produced by the respondent with a view to take benefit of the promotional avenue as Lance Naik. It is in that light, the appellants had proceeded against the respondent. 7. In so far as the provision as contained in Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules and the procedure that is required to be followed, it would not be necessary for us to revisit the same in as much as the learned Single Judge having referred to those aspects of the matter has adverted to the factual matrix in the instant case. In any event, in so far as the procedure as contemplated under Rule 27, there is no serious dispute. If that be the position, all that would require a consideration is as to whether the learned Single Judge was justified in the conclusion that the non-appointment of the Presenting Officer and the opportunity being denied to the respondent herein to file the reply has prejudiced his case. 8. In order to appreciate this aspect, as noticed, the allegation is one that the respondent had submitted a fake judgment dated 11.10.1993. The fact remains that the respondent was no doubt involved in two criminal cases relating to a land dispute in his native village. The further fact is also that in the said cases, he has been acquitted through the judgment dated 14.09.1994 and 27.09.1996. If in that background the allegation is kept in perspective, the judgment dated 11.10.1993 was, in fact, submitted by the respondent, it would amount to a judgment having been submitted even before the case had been disposed of and it is in that light, the enquiry was required to proceed. 9. In such situation, when a serious charge of fabrication of a judgment and production of the same to obtain the benefit was made against the respondent, certainly, the respondent was to be provided sufficient opportunity in the enquiry. Admittedly, from the records as produced before us, no such opportunity of filing the written statement in the enquiry has been provided to the respondent. Further, in a circumstance where the allegation of production of fake judgment was made and if such allegation was to be brought home, the appropriate documents were required to be produced through the Presenting Officer so as to enable the respondent to look into such documents and the evidence to be tendered on behalf of the employer and put forth his contention, more particularly, in the circumstance of the defence that would be taken in the written statement if an opportunity is provided to the respondent. Therefore, in that circumstance, having minutely taken note of the consideration as made by the learned Single Judge, it is seen that the learned Single Judge has on the factual matrix recorded a finding that no such opportunity had been granted to the respondent and further that the learned Single Judge has also categorically recorded that there is no evidence tendered on behalf of the appellants to indicate that such fabricated judgment though available on file, has in fact been submitted by the respondent herein. 10. In that circumstance, if the evidence as tendered is insufficient to indicate that the judgment had been submitted by the respondent, certainly the charge would not stand established. Though such conclusion is reached by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge essentially has set aside the action against the respondent on the ground of there being lacuna in the process of conducting the enquiry. In such circumstance, when the charge is held to be not proved, though for the reason that there was lacuna in the manner of conducting the enquiry and also when it is indicated that in such circumstance, the charge had not been proved, the learned Single Judge was justified in directing reinstatement and the benefit as given except the denial of 50% of the back wages. 11. Though in that regard we have arrived at such conclusion, one aspect of the matter which cannot escape our attention is that while taking note of the original records which had been brought before us, the learned counsel for the appellants has also sought to rely on a letter dated 22.11.1993, said to have been submitted by the respondent, wherein a reference is also said to have been made to the judgment which is alleged to have been produced by the respondent. Further, we also notice that in the Annexure-III to the Article of Charge, a mention has been made with regard to the said letter. Further, we also notice that in the Annexure-III to the Article of Charge, a mention has been made with regard to the said letter. If that be the position, the said letter will have to be brought on record in accordance with law and if ultimately the same is established, certainly the appellants would be entitled to proceed further in accordance with law, but such action can only be after implementing the order of the learned Single Judge and thereafter proceeding to hold the enquiry de novo on providing all opportunity to the respondent, more particularly, the opportunity of filing the written statement. 12. Hence to that extent having noticed this aspect of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge, after having concluded in the manner as has been done, ought to have provided the opportunity to the appellants to hold the de novo enquiry in accordance with law. Hence to that extent, we find it appropriate to modify the order of the learned Single Judge. Though the order as passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of the relief as granted is upheld, we deem it appropriate to reserve the liberty to the appellants to proceed de novo in accordance with law after providing the opportunity to the respondent by keeping in view the observation as contained in the order as passed by the learned Single Judge as well as in the order passed in this appeal. 13. While doing so, the appellants shall also scrupulously follow the requirement of Rule 27 of Rules 1955. It is further made clear that if the appellants intend to proceed in holding the de novo enquiry, the decision in that regard shall be taken in an expeditious manner, but in any event not later than 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If the decision is to hold a de novo enquiry, the same shall also be concluded in an expeditious manner. Needless to mention, if in the said process any administrative orders are required to be passed by the appellants to enable the conclusion of the enquiry in accordance with law, liberty in that regard is also left open. 14. In terms of the above, the appeal is allowed in part and disposed of accordingly.