JUDGMENT : Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri S. Suresh, learned ASG appearing for the respondents in WP(C) No. 1037 of 2015 and Shri S. Samarjeet, learned CGC appearing for the respondents in WP(C) No. 959 of 2015. 2. Since similar issues are involved in both the writ petitions, they are being disposed by this common judgment and order. W.P. (C) No. 1037 of 2015 3.1 By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order of removal dated 29-09-2014 issued by the Commandant, 197 Bn. CRPF and the order dated 23-04-2015 issued by the DIG, CRPF, Amethi Range, GC Campur, Lucknow, UP rejecting his statutory appeal. 3.2 Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was recruited as a Constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as "the CRPF") and was given F/No. 075150986 CT/GD under F/197 Battalion, CRPF. While he was being posted at the Unit Headquarter, Chaibasha, Jharkhand, he was granted thirty days Earned Leave w.e.f. 29-05-2013 to 27-06-2013 and was required to report for duty on 27-06-2013. As he was required to report for duty on 27-06-2013, he went to Group Centre, CRPF, Langjing on 26-06-2013 for going by air courier, to which one of the officials of the air counter at the Group Centre asked him to go back home as he could report on the morning of 27-06-2013 at 05:30 a.m. at the Imphal Airport. While returning home, he sustained injury at a road accident and was admitted at the Orthopaedic Department, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal and the doctor who attended him there, advised him to take rest for fifteen days after the petitioner being operated upon for lacerated injury. 3.3 On 21-08-2013, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commandant, 197 Bn. CRPF, Chaibasa, Jharkhand informing that he could not report at his place of posting on account of the said accident. It so happened that while he was undergoing treatment, he suffered Hepatitis (Jaundice) while trying to go back to his place of posting and accordingly, he was examined at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal on 10-09-2013 and he had to undergo some clinical tests. It so happened that while he was undergoing treatment, he suffered Hepatitis (Jaundice) while trying to go back to his place of posting and accordingly, he was examined at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal on 10-09-2013 and he had to undergo some clinical tests. While the petitioner was undergoing treatment with regular follow up, the Commandant, 197 Bn., CRPF issued a warrant of arrest dated 04-10-2013 against him for which the Superintendent of Police, Thoubal, Manipur was requested to arrest him and make arrangement for his production before the DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Imphal, Manipur under proper escort. 3.4 On 14-04-2014, the Commandant, 197 Bn., CRPF, Chaibasha, West Singbhum, Jharkhand issued a memorandum, containing the article of charges and statement of imputation of misconduct with lists of witnesses and documents, whereby the petitioner was charged for overstaying of leave w.e.f. 28-06-2013 without any permission from the competent authority. Shri Arjun Lal Garhawal, Assistant Commandant, 197 Bn., CRPF was appointed as the Enquiry Officer while no Presenting Officer was appointed and after the enquiry was allegedly over, the Enquiry Officer submitted its findings of the ex-parte departmental enquiry holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were held to be proved. Thereafter, the Commandant, 197 Bn., CRPF furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner at his residence asking him to submit his representation, if any, against the ex-parte departmental enquiry but he could not submit it as he was suffering from Hepatitis. Accordingly, the Commandant, 197 Bn., CRPF issued an order dated 29-09-2014 imposing a penalty of "Removal from Service" w.e.f. 29-04-2014 and his period of absence from 28-06-2013 till the date of issuance of the order dated 29-09-2014 was treated as dies non. 3.5 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29-09-2014, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the appellate authority/Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Amithi Range, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh on the inter-alia grounds that the non-appointment of the Presenting Officer and non-compliance with the Rules 31(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 etc. vitiated the proceedings and that without taking into consideration the grounds raised by the petitioner, his statutory appeal was rejected as devoid of merit. vitiated the proceedings and that without taking into consideration the grounds raised by the petitioner, his statutory appeal was rejected as devoid of merit. 3.6 Being aggrieved further by the said orders dated 29-09-2014 and 23-04-2015, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that he had no intention to avoid joining his duty and he could not report at his place of duty on account of illness; that since no Presenting Officer was appointed, the Enquiry Officer himself examined the witnesses produced before him and recorded their statement by acting himself as a Judge as well as a Prosecutor which is not permissible in the eye of law; that the ex-parte departmental enquiry was proceeded in violation of the principle of natural justice and that the charge leveled against him was vague on the basis of which he was removed from service. 4. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, the averments made in the writ petition have been denied and in addition thereto, it has been stated that even after the warrant of arrest was issued by the Commandant, he could not be apprehended by the police and therefore, he was declared as a "deserter'. In order to hold an enquiry, a memorandum was issued containing articles of charges which were sent at the address of the petitioner and despite opportunities including engagement of Defence Assistant, being given to him, the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the enquiry was proceeded ex-parte and the Enquiry Officer after examining all the pros and cons of the case along with relevant statements of witnesses and prosecution documents, held the charges to be proved against the petitioner. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to his address, to which no reply/representation was submitted by him. After due examination of the entire disciplinary proceedings including the relevant rules, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of removal from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal, was rejected being devoid of merit. W.P. (C) No. 959 of 2015 5. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner including the impugned order dated 07-07-2003 issued by the Commandant, as the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law. W.P. (C) No. 959 of 2015 5. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner including the impugned order dated 07-07-2003 issued by the Commandant, as the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6.1 Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner, after he being enrolled as a Constable (GD) in the CRPF, was posted at the 26th Bn., CRPF, Koirengei, Imphal, Manipur. While he was being posted there, he was granted sixty days Earned Leave w.e.f. 06-04-2002 to 06-06-2002 and was required to report for duty on 06-06-2002. After enjoying sixty days earned leave, the petitioner left his home for reporting back to his place of posting and on his journey by train from Farrukhabad to Kanpur, he felt ill and become unconscious and on the way at Bilhaur Railway Station, some persons got him down from the train and admitted at Government Health Centre, Bilhaur, Kanpur District where he underwent treatment upto 02-12-2002 for which the concerned Doctor issued him fitness certificate. 6.2 The petitioner's wife Smt. Kamlesh Kumari informed about his illness by telephonic calls as well as by sending letters to the office of the 26th Bn., CRPF, Loktak, Manipur on 04-06-2002, 06-07-2002, 06-08-2002, 09-09-2002 and 12-12-2002. After his illness being improved, the petitioner reported for his duty on 13-12-2002 but after joining his duty, he again started suffering from his earlier illness and therefore, he was referred to the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal by the Senior Medical Officer of Unit Hospital, 26th Bn., CRPF on 16-12-2012. As per the advice of the Sr. Medical Officer, the petitioner continued to undergo treatment at the RIMS Hospital, Imphal upto 07-06-2003 and he was even treated as an indoor patient. After thorough examination, the petitioner was found to be suffering from Somatization Disorder and Depression and accordingly, he was advised for psychological treatment (Behaviour Therapy). 6.3 On 29-01-2003, the Commandant, 26 Bn., CRPF, Koirengei, Imphal issued a memorandum containing article of charges whereby the petitioner was charged for over-staying of leave for 189 (one hundred and eighty nine) days. Further, he was also charged for over-staying of leave on earlier 11 (eleven) occasions stating that he was guilty of misconduct as a habitual offender. 6.3 On 29-01-2003, the Commandant, 26 Bn., CRPF, Koirengei, Imphal issued a memorandum containing article of charges whereby the petitioner was charged for over-staying of leave for 189 (one hundred and eighty nine) days. Further, he was also charged for over-staying of leave on earlier 11 (eleven) occasions stating that he was guilty of misconduct as a habitual offender. On 19-02-2003, the Commandant, 26 Bn., CRPF, Koirengei, Imphal issued an order whereby Shri Rajbir Singh, Assistant Commandant was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against him. After the departmental enquiry was over, the Enquiry Officer submitted its findings to the disciplinary authority by holding that the charges leveled against him were found to be proved. Thereafter, the Commandant, 26 Bn., CRPF, Koirengei, Imphal, Manipur issued an order dated 07-07-2003 imposing a penalty of "Removal from Service" w.e.f. 07-07-2003 and his period of absence from 07-06-2002 to 12-02-2002 was treated as dies non. 6.4 Being aggrieved by the said dismissal order dated 07-07-2003, the petitioner preferred a petition being W.A. No. 4985 of 2004 before the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed on 24-03-2014 on ground of lack of jurisdiction. Further, the petitioner preferred another appeal before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which too refused to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the said appeal was dismissed on 29-05-2014. Having no alternative, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition before this Court challenging his dismissal order dated 07-07-2003 on the inter-alia grounds that since no Presenting Officer was appointed, the Enquiry Officer himself took the role of a judge, examined the witnesses produced before him and recorded their statements by exhibiting documents which is not permissible in the eye of law; that the petitioner was not informed that he had a right to engage a Defence Assistant and that the proceedings initiated against him was in violation of the principle of natural justice resulting in the entire proceeding being vitiated. 7. The stand of the respondents indicated in their affidavit, is that although the petitioner was granted 60 days earned leave, he did not report for duty even after the expiry of the said period and accordingly, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him. During the course of enquiry, he was given all opportunities including cross-examination, to defend himself as per rules. During the course of enquiry, he was given all opportunities including cross-examination, to defend himself as per rules. The Enquiry Officer found the charges to be proved against him and moreover, the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct of being a habitual offender. 8. The short issue that arises for consideration by this Court is as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the non-appointment of the Present Officer will vitiate the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners, when admittedly the Rules 27 of the CRPF Rules do not contemplate appointment of Presenting Officer. In other words, the issue is as to whether the Enquiry Officer, in the present cases, acted as a Judge as well as a prosecutor resulting in the disciplinary proceedings being vitiated. It has been submitted by Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that as no Presenting Officer was appointed, the Enquiry Officer himself examined the witnesses produced before him and recorded their statements and thus, he acted as a Judge as well as a Prosecutor which is not permissible in the eyes of law. Therefore, the instant writ petition can be allowed in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, (2018) 7 SCC 670 . Moreover, it has further been submitted by him that a Single Bench and a Division Bench of this court have considered similar issues in WP(C) No. 140 of 2012; WP(C) No. 239 of 2008 and RP No. 11 of 2014 holding inter-alia that even if the Departmental enquiry did not suffer from any irregularities as submitted by the counsel appearing for the Union of India, the facts remained that no Presenting Officer was appointed during and in course of the Departmental enquiry and if that be so, that would be sufficient to vitiate the Departmental enquiry in the light of the law as discussed therein. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Shri S. Suresh, ASG appearing for the Union of India that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme in Union of India & ors Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma is in favour of the Union of India and therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this court. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Shri S. Suresh, ASG appearing for the Union of India that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme in Union of India & ors Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma is in favour of the Union of India and therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this court. In support of his contention, he has referred to and relied upon other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & ors. Vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, (2005) 13 SCC 228 and Union of India & ors. Vs. Diler Singh, (2016) 13 SCC 71 . Shri S. Samarjeet, learned CGC supported the submissions made by Shri S. Suresh and therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. On perusal of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and relied by both the counsel appearing for the parties, it is seen that the issues involved herein can be decided by this court in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court in Union of India & ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma case confining to the facts and circumstances of the present case for the reason that both of them relied upon it. So far as the decisions rendered by this court and relied upon by Shri Kh. tarunkumar, in other cases and on similar issues, are concerned, the judicial discipline ordinarily demands that they should be followed by this bench too. But it may be noted that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law subsequently on the similar issue, this court is bound by it in view of the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. As regards the other decisions relied upon by the learned ASG, the issues involved therein are not identical to that of the present cases, although they arose out of the provisions of CRPF and in other words, they related to the issue whether the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Such an issue is not involved in the present cases and therefore, the said decisions relied upon by him have no relevance in so far as the present cases are concerned. 9.1 In Union of India & ors. Vs. Such an issue is not involved in the present cases and therefore, the said decisions relied upon by him have no relevance in so far as the present cases are concerned. 9.1 In Union of India & ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma case, four cases were clubbed together and decided by a common judgment and order because the facts were identical. After laying down the law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the facts of those cases. The facts which are common in those cases, are that the respondents therein were serving as constables in the CRPF who either left the lines without permission of the competent authority or went on leave and did not report for duty after the period of leave was over. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them without the appointment of the Presenting Officers and after the enquiries were over or proceeded ex-parte, the Enquiry Officers found them to be guilty of the charges leveled against them. Accordingly, orders for removal were issued and the statutory appeals preferred by them were also rejected which compelled them to approach the High Court by way of writ petitions which allowed the same on the ground that in the disciplinary enquiries, the principles of natural justice were violated as the Enquiry Officers had acted as Prosecutors. Therefore, appeals were preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Union of India against the orders of the High Court. 9.2 The principal submissions raised by the counsel appearing for the Union of India are as under: "22.1. The disciplinary inquiry is required to be conducted under Rule 27 of the 1955 Rules which does not contemplate appointment of a Presenting Officer Hence, the inquiry proceedings are not vitiated by the non-appointment of Presenting Officer 21.2. The disciplinary inquiry has been held against the respondents by complying with the principles of natural justice. No principle of natural justice is violated by non-appointment of Presenting Officer No prejudice has been caused to the respondents by non-appointment of Presenting Officer." 9.3 Since the Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules provides for the procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry, the Hon'ble Supreme Court perused it and observed as under: "23. No principle of natural justice is violated by non-appointment of Presenting Officer No prejudice has been caused to the respondents by non-appointment of Presenting Officer." 9.3 Since the Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules provides for the procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry, the Hon'ble Supreme Court perused it and observed as under: "23. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule does not indicate that Rule contemplates appointment of Presenting Officer Service conditions including punishment and appeal procedure of an employee are governed by statutory rules. The CRPF Act, 1949 has been enacted by Parliament for the constitution and regulation of an armed Central Reserve Police Force. Section 18 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act." 9.4 Referring to its earlier decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the rules of natural justice which have been recognized and developed as the principles of administrative law and formulated an issue to be decided by it which is as under: "When the statutory rule does not contemplate appointment of Presenting Officer whether non-appointment of Presenting Officer ipso facto vitiate the enquiry"? But after noticing the statutory provision of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules which does not indicate that there is any statutory requirement of the appointment of Presenting Officer in the disciplinary enquiry, the Hon'ble Supreme Court formulated the issue involved therein as the following: "When the statutory provision does not require appointment of Presenting Officer whether there can be any circumstances where principles of natural justice can be held to be violated, is the broad question which needs to be answered in this case". 9.5 While considering the rival contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision rendered by Shri M. Rama Jois, J. of the Karnataka High Court in Bharath Electronics Ltd. Vs. K. Kasi, ILR 1987 Kar. 336 wherein it has been held that there is no legal compulsion that the Presenting Officer should be appointed but if the Enquiry Officer plays the role of a Presenting Officer, the enquiry would be invalid. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to is earlier decision in Workmen Vs. Lambabari Tea Estate, (1966) 2 LIJ 315 (SC) wherein it has been held that if the Enquiry Officer did not keep his function as Enquiry Officer but becomes Prosecutor, the enquiry is vitiated. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to is earlier decision in Workmen Vs. Lambabari Tea Estate, (1966) 2 LIJ 315 (SC) wherein it has been held that if the Enquiry Officer did not keep his function as Enquiry Officer but becomes Prosecutor, the enquiry is vitiated. Ultimately, after having referred to the said decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court endorsed the principles enumerated by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Union of India Vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, ILR 2004 MP 821 and the relevant paragraphs are as under: "31. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court speaking through R.V. Raveendran, C.J. (as he then was) had occasion to consider the question of vitiation of the inquiry when the Enquiry Officer starts himself acting as prosecutor in Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui. In the above case the Court considered Rule 9(9)(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Division Bench while elaborating fundamental principles of natural justice enumerated the seven well-recognized facets in para 7 of the judgment which is to the following effect: "7. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. This principle consists of seven well-recognized facets: (i) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias, (ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor, (iii) The complainant shall not be an adjudicator, (iv) A witness cannot be the adjudicator, (v) The adjudicator must not import his personal knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into charges, (vi) The adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his superiors or others; (vii) The adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to material on record and not reference to extraneous material or on extraneous considerations. If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the inquiry will be vitiated." 32. The Division Bench further held that where the Enquiry Officer acts as Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. Para 9 is as follows: "9. A domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased person who is unconnected with the incident so that he can be impartial and objective in deciding the subject-matters of inquiry. He should have an open mind till the inquiry is completed and should neither act with bias nor give an impression of bias. Para 9 is as follows: "9. A domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased person who is unconnected with the incident so that he can be impartial and objective in deciding the subject-matters of inquiry. He should have an open mind till the inquiry is completed and should neither act with bias nor give an impression of bias. Where the Enquiry Officer acts as the Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. At all events, it clearly gives an impression of bias. An Enquiry Officer is in the position of a prosecutor. If the Enquiry Officer acts as a Presenting Officer, then it would amount to Judge acting as the prosecutor. When the Enquiry Officer conducts the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses and leads them through the facts so as to present the case of the disciplinary authority against the employee or cross-examines the delinquent employee or his witnesses to establish the case of the employer/disciplinary authority evidently, the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to have an open mind. The very fact that he presents the case of the employer and supports the case of the employer is sufficient to hold that the Enquiry Officer does not have an open mind." 33. The Division Bench after elaborately considering the issue summarized the principles in par 16 which is to the following effect: "16. We may summarise the principles thus: (i) The Enquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor. (ii) It is not necessary for the disciplinary authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry. (iii) The Enquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Enquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses on those clarifications. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Enquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses on those clarifications. (iv) If the Enquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution case employee, the Enquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry. (v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognized that the Enquiry Officer can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an Enquiry Officer acts as a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with reference to the manner in which the evidence is let in an recorded in the inquiry. Whether an Enquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Enquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may." 10. As seen from the above legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whether an Enquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Enquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. So far as the present cases are concerned, the facts as narrated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1800 of 2014 are identical to that of the WP(C) No. 1037 of 2015. Now, therefore, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & ors Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma and in order to decide the issue involved herein on facts, this court will have to examine whether the Enquiry Officer acted merely as an Enquiry Officer or as a Presenting Officer, for which the relevant files produced before this court by the counsel appearing for the respondents are required to be perused by this court. Ram Lakhan Sharma and in order to decide the issue involved herein on facts, this court will have to examine whether the Enquiry Officer acted merely as an Enquiry Officer or as a Presenting Officer, for which the relevant files produced before this court by the counsel appearing for the respondents are required to be perused by this court. As regards the WP(C) No. 1037 of 2015, it is evident from the enquiry report dated 19-04-2014 that the witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer and their statements were recorded as PWs against the charged official in proof of charges against him. But it is not clear from it as to how the examination-in-chief of the witnesses was recorded by him but in any case, the examinations-in-chief appear to have not been recorded in the form of affidavits. It is not in dispute that the Presenting Officer was not appointed and therefore, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer led the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses by putting questions to them. It can thus be said that the Enquiry Officer acted himself as a Prosecutor and a Judge as well in the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner with the result that there was no fair procedure being followed in the disciplinary enquiry and that the principles of natural justice were denied to the petitioner. Similar is the case with the petitioner in WP(C) No. 959 of 2015 but in addition to what has been stated hereinabove, it is seen from the file pertaining to the enquiry report that not only the examination-in-chief being led by the Enquiry Officer but various substantive questions also being put to the witnesses after their statements were recorded by him. In view of the above, this court is of the view that the above writ petitions deserve to be allowed by this court. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petitions are allowed and consequently, the order of dismissal dated 29-09-2014 and the order dated 23-04-2015 rejecting the appeal in respect of the WP(C) No. 1037 of 2015 are quashed and set aside and similarly, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in WP(C) No. 959 of 2015 including the order of removal dated 07-07-2003 are quashed and set aside with no order as to costs. However, it is open to the respondents to proceed with an enquiry afresh/denovo enquiry from the stage when the Presenting Officers were not appointed by them.