JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is for quashing the order of punishment dated 27.3.2010 vide Annexure-12 passed by the opposite party no.1 whereby and whereunder withdrawn one increment of the petitioner with cumulative effect, Rs.1,65,574/- to be recovered from petitioner’s pension and gratuity dues and the period of suspension shall be treated as leave due as admissible. 2. According to the petitioner, while he was working for sometime as Junior Assistant, has been proceeded departmentally for allegation of giving certificate on the body of the Muster Roll for the month of January, 2000 wherein he has given a certificate that 20 DLR employees having been allowed to got extra allowance by order of Chairman and they are continuing before 1994 and their original date of engagement has not been find out till now. Accordingly, a memorandum has been served upon him vide Memorandum dated 20.7.2002. The petitioner was asked to participate in the inquiry in which he had participated and demanded relevant documents, but when the documents have not been supplied, he has approached to this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2015 of 2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 2.5.2003 whereby and whereunder this Court has directed to complete the Disciplinary Proceeding within six months from the date of communication of the order. However, if the petitioner so desires, can peruse any document which are connected with the Disciplinary Proceeding, but no further time shall be given to the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, he has demanded the relevant documents, which according to him, are relevant for putting his proper defence, but the documents have not been supplied. 4. The Inquiry Officer, without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has concluded the inquiry and submitted his report on 3.4.2003 whereby and whereunder the allegation leveled against the petitioner has been found to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority, while accepting the said Inquiry Report by giving opportunity to file second show cause, vide order dated 30.12.2003 (Annexure-8) has inflicted the following punishments:- (i) The amount of Rs.1,65,574/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty-five Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Four) only shall be recovered from the salary to be drawn by the delinquent employee. The Disciplinary Authority, while accepting the said Inquiry Report by giving opportunity to file second show cause, vide order dated 30.12.2003 (Annexure-8) has inflicted the following punishments:- (i) The amount of Rs.1,65,574/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty-five Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Four) only shall be recovered from the salary to be drawn by the delinquent employee. (ii) Three consecutive increments of the delinquent employee shall be withheld and the promotion of the delinquent employee shall also be withheld during the said period as envisaged under C.C.A. Rule, 1962. (iii) The period of suspension is treated as such. 5. The petitioner, against the order of punishment dated 30.12.2003, has preferred appeal before the opposite party no.2- Director, Municipal Administration, Ex-Officio, Addl. Secretary to Government, Orissa Housing and Urban Development Department, Bhubaneswar and the opposite party no.2, after going through all the documents as well as orders of the this Court, set aside the order dated 30.12.2003 of the Disciplinary Authority as per Rule 29(1)(i) of C.C.A. Rules by order dated 27.8.2005 (Annexure-9) that:- (i) The enquiry be conducted afresh after following necessary formalities as prescribed in O.C.S. (C.C.&A) Rules, 1962. (ii) The defects pointed out in my observation vide point no.1, 2 and 3 should not recur during the fresh enquiry and finalization of the disciplinary proceeding. (iii) Recovery of the amount from the delinquent should wait till disposal of the Disciplinary proceeding after fresh enquiry. 6. After direction was given by the opposite party no.2, the petitioner immediately made an application before the Inquiring Officer-cum-Recovery Officer, Cuttack Municipal Corporation on 13.2.2007 (Annexure-10) to supply certain documents which are required to file reply against the charges, but the opposite parties nos.3 and 4 without complying the order of appellate authority vide Annexure-9 and also the representation vide Annexure-10, intimated to the petitioner by letter dated 14.2.2008 by enclosing the enquiry report dated 2.2.2008 and called upon the petitioner to file written explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter. 7. 7. Petitioner, after receipt of the said letter dated 14.2.2008, immediately made an application to the opposite party no.2 on 18.2.2008 with a prayer to quash the enquiry report and drop the proceeding as the same is contrary to the order of Appellate Authority dated 27.8.2005, but in spite of this, the Municipal Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation (Disciplinary Authority), without complying the order of Appellate Authority as well as the order of this Court, vide order dated 10.07.2008 (Annexure-11) has inflicted therein the following punishments:- i. One increment is stopped with cumulative effect. It is further ordered that, the Municipal funds to the tune of Rs.1,65,574/- paid to different persons due to the fault of Sri Nayak be recovered from him lump sum/pension and gratuity dues if not cleared in time. The period of suspension shall be treated as leave due and admissible for which he shall submit leave application. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority is also declined to interfere with the order of punishment dated 10.7.2008 by rejecting vide order dated 27.3.2010 under Annexure-12. 9. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of punishment, is before this Court on the ground that the relevant documents have not been supplied to him. Hence, the principle of natural justice has not been followed by not providing him adequate and sufficient opportunity to defend. 10. The accountability of the other co-employees, who are involved in the case of disbursement of the extra-allowances in favour of the 20 DLR employees, has not been taken into consideration. 11. Merely on the ground of giving a certificate, the money cannot be disbursed unless it is approved by the competent authority, but the Inquiry Officer has not been taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter even the Disciplinary Authority has also not considered it and further the Appellate Authority without consider it, rejected the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. 12. While, on the other hand, Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party-Cuttack Municipal Corporation submits that there is no infirmity in the order of punishment, rather the procedure has been followed. The relevant documents, which pertain to the allegation, have been supplied. Hence, this writ petition. 12. While, on the other hand, Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party-Cuttack Municipal Corporation submits that there is no infirmity in the order of punishment, rather the procedure has been followed. The relevant documents, which pertain to the allegation, have been supplied. He further submits that even this Court, while disposing of the W.P.(C) No.2015 of 2002, has directed to supply the document, if it is relevant and to be taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, but according to him, the documents which the petitioner has sought for, have not been taken into account for the purpose of inflicting the punishment. He further submits that all the relevant documents, basis upon which the charge has been proved by the Inquiry Officer, have been supplied. Hence, it is incorrect to say that the principle of natural justice has not been followed. He further submits that in pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Cuttack Municipal Council has conducted an inquiry and it was found therein that there is also involvement of the Bill Clerk, Accountant and Auditor and now the proceeding is to be initiated against them under the provision of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962. He further submits that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to say that the extra money, which has been disbursed in favour of the 20 DLR employees, is not on the basis of the certificate given by the petitioner, rather it was his certificate from which date the extra allowance has been decided to be given and if the petitioner would not have been given the said certificate, the extra allowances to these 20 DLR employees would not have been extended in their favour. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not either involved in disbursement of the extra allowances in favour of the 20 DLR employees by putting the Cuttack Municipal Corporation in pecuniary loss. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident that the petitioner while posted as Junior Assistant has departmentally been proceeded for alleged misconduct of giving the certificate to the effect that the 20 DLRs workers are getting extra allowances in the year 1994. However, their date of appointment is not known. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident that the petitioner while posted as Junior Assistant has departmentally been proceeded for alleged misconduct of giving the certificate to the effect that the 20 DLRs workers are getting extra allowances in the year 1994. However, their date of appointment is not known. The petitioner has participated before the Inquiry Officer by defending himself and thereafter, the Inquiry Officer has found the charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority while accepting the Inquiry Report has inflicted the punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect, recovery a sum of Rs.1,65,574/- from his pension and gratuity dues and the period of suspension is to be treated as such. 14. The petitioner has assailed the said order before the Appellate Authority, but the Appellate Authority has declined to interfere with the order of punishment by rejecting it vide order dated 27.3.2010. 15. Both the orders dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure-11) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 27.3.2010 (Annexure-12) passed by the Appellate Authority are challenged in this writ petition. 16. It is necessary to state here that this Court, while hearing the matter, has passed order on 5.9.2017 & 22.11.2017 considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even accepting that he is at fault, but merely on the account of giving a certificate of endorsement of getting extra allowances by the 20 DLRs, the same cannot be based for disbursement of the monetary benefit unless the Accounts Section will approve it and sent before the concerned Treasury for its withdrawal. 17. This Court, while considering the submission, has directed the Cuttack Municipal Corporation to conduct an inquiry in this regard and in pursuant thereto an Inquiry Report dated 2.1.2018 was submitted whereby and whereunder the Additional Commissioner has submitted a report stating therein that the petitioner has given certificate on 2.3.2000 regarding continuance of 20 numbers of DLRs enlisted in the Muster Roll in question, before 1994. It is surprising to find that the Bill Clerk has prepared the bill on the basis of certificate given by the petitioner without authentication of Establishment Branch. He should have endorsed the bill back to Establishment Section/Addl. Executive Officer for authentication of certificate which was given by the petitioner unauthorizedly. 18. It is surprising to find that the Bill Clerk has prepared the bill on the basis of certificate given by the petitioner without authentication of Establishment Branch. He should have endorsed the bill back to Establishment Section/Addl. Executive Officer for authentication of certificate which was given by the petitioner unauthorizedly. 18. It has been found on inquiry that besides involvement of the petitioner, there is also involvement of the Accounts Section specifically the then Bill Clerk, Accountant and Auditor and as such, responsibility is required to be fixed against them for irregular payment of 20 numbers of DLR employees in question. 19. The decision has been taken that the persons responsible in this matter is proceeded as per the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 for taking appropriate disciplinary action by giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 20. It is evident from the materials available on record that on the fact finding inquiry, the Additional Commissioner of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation has come out with the report that there is involvement of other officials, who are involved in disbursement of the money in favour of the 20 numbers of DLR employees apart from the petitioner. It is evident from the order of punishment that the petitioner has been solely proceeded departmentally by inflicting punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and total disbursed amount to the tune of Rs.1,65,574/-has been directed to be recovered from his pension and gratuity dues and the period of suspension shall be treated as leave due as admissible. It is not in dispute that the fact finding inquiry which has been submitted in pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 5.9.2017 & 22.11.2017 ought to have been conducted by the authority at the time of framing charge against the petitioner, since that is the purpose of fact finding preliminary inquiry so that an employee if committed any irregularity may be surfaced and due proceeding be initiated against all the employees found to be involved in course of his fact finding inquiry, but such fact finding inquiry has not been conducted, rather it has been conducted after passing of the final order against the petitioner inflicting punishment of recovery as also withdrawal of one increment. 21. 21. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the implication of other co-employees have been surfaced in the fact finding inquiry and as such, the order of punishment is required to be reconsidered by the authority, this Court finds substances in his argument for the reason that if the co-employee is decided to be proceeded as per the Inquiry Report dated 2.1.2018, then it would not be proper to keep the order of punishment in existence in view of the fact that the nature of punishment might be changed, so far as it relates to quantum of the amount which has directed to be recovered from the pensionary benefit of the petitioner, since if the implication of other co-employees as per the preliminary inquiry report dated 2.1.2018 will be established the excess money which has been paid in favour of the 20 DLR employees will have to be recovered in equal proportion from all such co-delinquent employees. 22. Keeping these facts into consideration, the order of punishment dated 10.07.2008 (Annexure-11) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 27.3.2010 (Annexure-12) passed by the Appellate Authority requires to be quashed and, accordingly, the same are quashed. 23. The matter is remitted before the competent authority to proceed against the petitioner along with other co-delinquent employees, i.e., Bill Clerk, Accountant and Auditor in accordance with law as per the preliminary inquiry report dated 2.1.2018 by following principle of natural justice and providing all adequate opportunity of being heard to all the affected parties as per provision of Discipline and Appeal Rule applicable to them. The concerned authority is directed to conclude the proceeding within three months by taking independent decision from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.