JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs; (a) For quashing the Final Order passed vide Dhanbad Office Order No. 3953/10 dated 03.09.10 (Memo No. 5064 dated 03.09.2010) (Annexure-9) by the Respondent No.2 (Disciplinary Authority) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was dismissed from the service of Jharkhand Police w.e.f. 03.09.2010 forenoon and the allowances for the period from 01.09.2010 to 02.09.2010 was withheld on the basis of no work, no pay treating the same to be extraordinary leave and an order was passed for non-payment of anything else except the subsistence allowances already paid to the petitioner and a further direction was issued to delete the name of the petitioner from the concerned records of the district as well as for quashing the Enquiry Report dated 29.05.2010 (Annexure-5) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was held to be guilty of the charges levelled against him; (b) For quashing the Appellate Order passed vide Dhanbad Office Order No. 4963/10 dated 18.11.2010 (Memo No. 1479 dated 11.11.2010)(Annexure-11) by the Respondent No.3 (Appellate Authority) whereby and whereunder the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority; (c) For quashing the Revisional Order passed vide Memo No. 137 dated 2/4/5-05-2012 (Annexure-13) by the Respondent No.4 (Revisional Authority) whereby and whereunder the revision application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority; (d) For a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of constable with immediate effect; (e) For directing the respondents to give all the consequential benefits to the petitioner thereupon on this re-instatement for which he is found to be entitled, including the arrears of salary; (f) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs for doing conscionable and equitable justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Sans details, the brief facts as disclosed in the writ application is that while the petitioner was posted at Dhanbad he requested the respondent-authority for leave to go home in connection with his marriage. 3. Sans details, the brief facts as disclosed in the writ application is that while the petitioner was posted at Dhanbad he requested the respondent-authority for leave to go home in connection with his marriage. However the same was not granted and pursuant to that it has been alleged that one Havaldar Ranjit Singh took the petitioner to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and there was some altercation between them, for which a complaint was lodged by the said Deputy Superintendent of Police Centre-II, Dhanbad and pursuant to that the petitioner was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated by issuing a charge-sheet. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was held guilty and punishment of dismissal has been awarded to him. The said punishment order was upheld by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. 4. The specific case of the petitioner is that he submitted his show-cause, wherein he has specifically stated that all the allegations leveled against him is false and the entire things has not been appreciated in correct perspective. He has taken a specific ground in his reply to the second show cause notice that the other persons namely, Jagjivan Mouchi, Harish Kacchap, Arun Kumar Bauri and Saryu Thakur and all other persons who were present at the place of occurrence, has not been examined and as such, principle of natural justice has not been accorded to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued inter alia that the principle of natural justice have not been complied with inasmuch as the petitioner was not supplied the statements of witness and further the other important witnesses who were present at the time of occurrence were not summoned who could have thrown some light which is against the Rules as enshrined in Rule 824A (c) of Bihar Police Manual read with Note-I under Rule-2 of The Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1935 read with Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal), Rules, 1930. Learned counsel contended inter-alia that at the very first stage, he has requested to summon independent witness in order to ascertain the actual facts, which was received by the Inquiry Officer on 13.05.2010 itself (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 17.01.2017) however, for the reason best known to the Inquiry Officer, no independent witness were summoned. Learned counsel contended inter-alia that at the very first stage, he has requested to summon independent witness in order to ascertain the actual facts, which was received by the Inquiry Officer on 13.05.2010 itself (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 17.01.2017) however, for the reason best known to the Inquiry Officer, no independent witness were summoned. In order to buttress this contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed in the case of State of Punjab vs. Dewan Chuni Lal as reported in (1970) 1 SCC 479 wherein at para 19 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under; “19. In our view the High Court arrived at the correct conclusion and on the facts of this case it is impossible to hold that the respondent had been given reasonable opportunity of conducting his defence before the enquiry officer. From what we have stated it is clear that if the enquiry officer had summoned at least those witnesses who were available and who could have thrown some light on the reports made against the respondent the report might well have been different. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that charges based on the reports for the years 1941 and 1942 should not have been levelled against the respondent.” 6. He further relied upon a judgment passed in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others vs. Jai Bhagwan as reported in (2011) 6 SCC 376 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the law at para 16 as under; “16. It also seems quite impracticable to presume that in the presence of so many passengers, the respondent could have extorted money. The allegation of receiving Rs. 100 as illegal gratification is framed on suspicions and possibilities while trying to link it up with the instance of returning back of Rs. 100 by the respondent to the complainant. There are many other shortcomings in the entire investigation and the enquiry like the statement of Mrs. Ranjana Kapoor was not recorded by the Inspector and the Inspector also did not take down in writing and also attest the complaint made by her. The statement of S.P. Narang was also not recorded by the Inspector nor did the Inspector seize Rs. 100 note nor noted down its number. Mr. Narang was also not examined during the course of departmental proceedings. The statement of S.P. Narang was also not recorded by the Inspector nor did the Inspector seize Rs. 100 note nor noted down its number. Mr. Narang was also not examined during the course of departmental proceedings. Non-examination of the complainant and P.S. Narang during the departmental proceeding has denied the respondent of his right of cross-examination and thus caused violation of Rule 16(iii) of the Delhi Police (F&A) Rules, 1980.” 7. Learned counsel further contended that in para 13 of its reply to show cause notice it has been specifically stated that the Inquiry Officer has not allowed him to present his defence witness. However, the said statement has been brushed away by the Disciplinary authority and the impugned order of dismissal has been passed. He further contended that similar specific statement has been made in para 7 of its memo of appeal filed before the Appellate authority, but unfortunately, even the Appellate authority has not considered the said ground and did not give any finding. As such on this score alone, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside as it is a case of no evidence and the petitioner should be reinitiated his service. Apart from other arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the main arguments was the question of parity. He submits that the departmental enquiry was initiated on the complaint in which the allegation against this petitioner was that he was standing with the other delinquent/Hawaldar Ranjit Singh who was charged for grievous offence. He further contended that even assuming for a moment that the entire story is true then also from plain reading of the respondent documents it clearly transpires that it was Hawaldar Ranjit Singh who manhandled the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the petitioner himself was standing beside, but for the reason best known to the Disciplinary authority, the said Hawaldar Ranjit Singh was inflicted lesser punishment of compulsory retirement, whereas the petitioner has been punished for dismissal from service. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State reiterated its stand made in the counter-affidavit and submits that there is no procedural error, whatsoever, in the entire departmental proceeding and in a disciplined force the petitioner ought to get the punishment for dismissal. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State reiterated its stand made in the counter-affidavit and submits that there is no procedural error, whatsoever, in the entire departmental proceeding and in a disciplined force the petitioner ought to get the punishment for dismissal. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was told by the Superintendent of Police that due to Ram Navami Festival his leave could not be granted but then also he along with Hawaldar Ranjit Singh came to the house of Deputy Superintendent of Police and committed the offence. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of U.P. State Road TPT. Corpn. and Ors. vs. Musai Ram and others as reported in (1999) 3 SCC 372 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at para 6 as under; “6. It is also contended that Shri Pandey had made his report after recording the statement of the passengers. The respondent was not given copies of the statements of those passengers and those passengers were not examined. Hence, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Whether there is such a violation or not, obviously depends upon the facts of each case. In the present case, in the charge-sheet it is clearly stated that what is proposed to be relied upon is a report submitted by the Assistant Traffic Inspector on both the occasions. Although the Assistant Traffic Inspector was examined and he proved his reports, the respondent did not cross-examine even the Assistant Traffic Inspector. He could have cross-examined the Assistant Traffic Inspector regarding the statements of passengers on the basis of which the report was made. He did not choose to do so. It is, therefore, not possible for him to contend that the enquiry ought to have been based on the statements of the passengers recorded by the Assistant Traffic Inspector or that the enquiry officer ought to have examined the passengers or that he ought to have been given a chance to cross-examine the passengers. When he has not challenged the reports filed by the Assistant Traffic Inspector, there is no question of violation of the principles of natural justice.” 9. When he has not challenged the reports filed by the Assistant Traffic Inspector, there is no question of violation of the principles of natural justice.” 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that before the Inquiry Officer, the delinquent has requested to summon the independent witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence; however, for the reason best known to the Inquiry Officer, no independent witnesses were called. As a matter of fact, the Inquiry Officer examined altogether four witnesses, in which other three witnesses, except the complainant, were hearsay/formal witness and further the name of the persons which has been mentioned in the complaint or the enquiry report who were present at the time of occurrence were not summoned as witness. The law is well settled that the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as he may wish. 10. In the instant case inspite of specific request made by the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer, no any independent witness was summoned. This certainly caused prejudice to the petitioner. From record it also transpires that the petitioner has taken specific ground in reply to his second show cause at para 13 that he was not given proper opportunity and principles of natural justice were not complied inasmuch as the independent witnesses were not summoned by the enquiry officer and also at para 7 of the memo of appeal. But both the authorities have brushed asides this ground of petitioner. It also appears that the said Hawaldar Ranjit Singh has been charged for grievous offence in comparison to the petitioner; however, he was inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement, whereas the petitioner has been punished for dismissal from service. 11. In view of the aforesaid findings, I hold that the impugned orders suffers from infirmity as it is against the settled law that if the Inquiry Officer would have summoned at least those witnesses who were available, then they could have thrown some light on the reports made against the petitioner; there might have been some other result. 11. In view of the aforesaid findings, I hold that the impugned orders suffers from infirmity as it is against the settled law that if the Inquiry Officer would have summoned at least those witnesses who were available, then they could have thrown some light on the reports made against the petitioner; there might have been some other result. Even otherwise, it is the right of the delinquent employee to adduce his defence witness and he has specifically requested before the Inquiry Officer to summon those independent witnesses named in the said letter (Annexure A to the supplementary counter affidavit). Further on the question of parity also the authority has not responded in their counter-affidavit as a result thereof the order of punishment as contained in Office Order No. 3953/10 dated 03.09.2010 (Memo No. 5064 dated 03.09.2010) (Annexure-9 of the writ application), whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service of Jharkhand Police w.e.f. 03.09.2010 forenoon is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the appellate order dated 18.11.2010 (Annexure-11) and revisional order dated 2/4/5-05-2012 (Annexure-13) are also hereby quashed and set aside. The instant application is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to proceed with the enquiry after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and allowing him to adduce defence witnesses and pass a necessary order. It goes without saying that since the orders under challenge have been quashed and set aside; as such, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service and he shall cooperate in the proceeding which will be from the stage of calling of the defence witnesses. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application stands allowed and disposed of. The interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.