ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The employer-petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging order dt. 16.01.2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the domestic enquiry conducted against the employee-respondent has been declared unfair. The employer-petitioner is further aggrieved by order dt. 19.03.2015 passed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "ID Act") wherein the application filed by the employer-petitioner for seeking approval of termination of service of the employee has been rejected. 2. Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dt. 16.01.2013 has been passed on a wrong premise and the said order suffers from legal infirmities. Learned counsel has submitted that since the employee concerned had admitted the charges before the Enquiry Officer, the domestic enquiry could not have been declared unfair in view of the admission of charges by the delinquent. 3. Learned counsel has argued that the delinquent-employee had ample opportunity to dispute the findings of the Enquiry Officer before the Disciplinary Authority and having failed to question the findings of the Enquiry Officer before the Disciplinary Authority, after the proper opportunity being afforded to defend himself, the respondent-employee could not have disputed the procedure followed by the petitioner-employer. 4. Learned counsel has argued that the employee concerned after receipt of charge-sheet before the Enquiry Officer, on first date itself admitted the charges and as such the Enquiry Officer did not commit any wrong while holding the employee guilty of the charges levelled against him. Learned counsel has argued that in respect of four charge-sheets issued to the delinquent, there was absence of as many as 123 days in total and the employee could not have been retained in service for committing a major misconduct of remaining absent on different occasions and issuance of four charge-sheets itself reflected that functioning of the employee concerned, was not in the interest of the employer. 5. Learned counsel has argued that the Industrial Tribunal while passing the order dt. 16.01.2013 about fairness of the domestic enquiry ought to have passed a reasoned order after considering the entire documents placed before it and only by assigning one reason, the order cannot said to be a legally sustainable in the eye of law. 6. 5. Learned counsel has argued that the Industrial Tribunal while passing the order dt. 16.01.2013 about fairness of the domestic enquiry ought to have passed a reasoned order after considering the entire documents placed before it and only by assigning one reason, the order cannot said to be a legally sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Learned counsel has further argued that the charge-sheet issued to the respondent-employee clearly reflected that he had no defence or justification in respect of absence from duty on various dates. 7. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 8. This Court finds from perusal of the order dt. 16.01.2013 that the Industrial Tribunal has recorded a finding that in respect of all the four charge-sheets, the Enquiry Officer had recorded the statement of the delinquent at first instance. This Court finds that the Enquiry Officer has adopted a procedure which is not the normal procedure of conducting the enquiry. The Presenting Officer on behalf of the Department is required to first lead the evidence (statement or documents) to prove the charge against the delinquent-employee and after completion of such evidence, the statement of delinquent or evidence produced, before Enquiry Officer are taken into consideration. 9. This Court finds that the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of material placed before it came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer had taken the statement of the delinquent at the first instance and without even considering the allegations levelled by the employer and proved before the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry was concluded and the same has been held to be in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. This Court had specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy as whether the procedure of holding enquiry by the Enquiry Officer was followed in proper manner and whether the statement of Presenting Officer was recorded with respect to the allegations levelled against the delinquent, the learned counsel submitted that the statement of delinquent admitting the charge did not lead to a situation where the evidence of the department or the stand on behalf of the Presenting Officer, was required to be disclosed. 11. 11. This Court considers that the procedure which has been followed by the Enquiry Officer is not the correct procedure and after issuing the charge-sheet, if the delinquent is asked to give his statement, such procedure cannot be valid and fair procedure to conduct the departmental enquiry. 12. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the delinquent had admitted the charges before the Enquiry Officer, there was no necessity to proceed further by the Enquiry Officer, this Court finds that admission of charges will always be after the department pleads and proves the charges before the Enquiry Officer stating the complete facts making out a case of misconduct as alleged in the charge-sheet. In the present case, if the employee was charged with the allegation of remaining absent, it was incumbent on the department to prove that on how many days the delinquent was absent and what was the record available with the department-employer to show that the employee was not present to discharge his duties. 13. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge being admitted by the delinquent and there remains no necessity to proceed further, this Court finds that at least the Presenting Officer has to first come out with the clear charges against the delinquent. The Enquiry Officer is an independent person and he has to conduct enquiry in fair manner. The Enquiry Officer cannot function as a Presenting Officer and he cannot assume the role of a prosecutor or a representative of employer while conducting the enquiry. 14. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that since there was absence of 123 days in total in respect of four charge-sheets, this Court finds that if the charges were serious in nature of remaining absent from duty without justification, it was incumbent on behalf of the employer to prove the same charges and if after leading proper evidence, the charges were proved, the Disciplinary Authority was absolutely within its domain to take a final view with respect to imposing punishment considering the gravity of charge. The absence of 123 days, in the present facts of the case without being proved by the employer, it cannot be said that the Industrial Tribunal committed illegality in declaring the domestic enquiry as unfair. 15. The absence of 123 days, in the present facts of the case without being proved by the employer, it cannot be said that the Industrial Tribunal committed illegality in declaring the domestic enquiry as unfair. 15. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that after the enquiry report being submitted, the delinquent had an opportunity to satisfy the Disciplinary Authority with respect of his absence, this Court finds that the enquiry itself was not conducted a proper and fair manner, the subsequent opportunity before the Disciplinary Authority, is of no significance. 16. This Court finds that the Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the report and the enquiry report itself was based on admission of the delinquent and as such the report of the Enquiry Officer given to the Disciplinary Authority, would not substitute the right which is available to the delinquent-employee to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer. 17. This Court finds that Industrial Tribunal while passing the order dt. 16.01.2013, has not committed any illegality. 18. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that order dt. 19.03.2015 rejecting the application filed by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, suffers from illegality and the Industrial Tribunal after came to conclusion that the enquiry has been declared unfair, the charges could not be proved against the delinquent who had expired and as such order dt. 19.03.2015 has wrongly passed, this Court finds no substance in the said submission. 19. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that during the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, the employer produced an affidavit of one Badrilal and after death of the respondent-employee no other evidence could be brought on record, this Court finds that the Industrial Tribunal has considered the said aspect of the matter and found that the evidence which was produced against the delinquent-employee was not sufficient as the charges could not be established against the employee concerned. 20. This Court finds little substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act could not have been passed and all the benefits could not have been conferred on the employee concerned declaring his termination of service to be bad in the eye of law. 21. This Court finds that the orders dt. 16.01.2013 and 19.03.2015 do not suffer from any legal infirmity. 21. This Court finds that the orders dt. 16.01.2013 and 19.03.2015 do not suffer from any legal infirmity. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 23. A copy of this order be sent to the legal representatives of the respondent-employee on their address.