JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. SHO, police Station, Sadar, Shimla informed the Superintendent of Police, Shimla vide confidential letter dated 29.5.2005 that the Manager of the Hotel Chand, Shimla after having lost rupees 6-6½ thousands while gambling with 4-5 persons intimated petitioner No. 1 Sanjeev Kumar, who at that relevant time was posted as Head Constable at Inter-State Bus Terminal (ISBT), Shimla. Petitioner Head Constable, Sanjeev Kumar accompanied by other petitioners namely, MHC/HC Ashwani Kumar No. 139 and Constable Manoj Kumar No. 1390 visited the hotel at around 3 O'clock in the night and allegedly took into possession sum of Rs. 21000/- from all the 5-6 persons, who were allegedly gambling inside the room. SHO Police station, Sadar, Shimla in his aforesaid communication sent to Superintendent of Police, Shimla further informed that out of Rs. 21000/- petitioners returned 6-6½ thousand to the Manager of the hotel and sum of Rs. 200/- each to the other gamblers. Allegedly, all the three petitioners misappropriated sum of Rs. 14,500/-. SHO, Police station, Sadar, Shimla also informed that SHO, police Station, Dhalli informed him on the telephone that on 25.5.2005 he had nabbed a person accused of stealing a sum of Rs. 60,000/- who, during investigation revealed that he had gambled in the Chand hotel with the stolen money and at that time three police personnel had visited the place in the intervening night of 23rd/24th.5.2005 and they had taken away sum of Rs. 21,000/- from there. Though, SHO, Police station, Sadar questioned/inquired all the petitioners, who had allegedly visited the hotel after having received information, but since none of them admitted their guilt, matter came to the notice of Superintendent of Police, Shimla through confidential report submitted by the SHO, Sadar, Shimla. Superintendent of Police got preliminary inquiry conducted in the matter by Dy. S.P (City), Shimla, which revealed that all the petitioners named hereinabove raided the hotel Chand on the telephonic information given by its Manager Sh. Gabbar Singh with an intention to obtain wrongful gain. Officer responsible for conducting preliminary inquiry reported in its preliminary report that it appears that petitioners stood benefited by not conducting any proceedings against the accused persons as such, they neither reported the matter to the higher authorities nor made any entry in the daily diary report. 2. Gabbar Singh with an intention to obtain wrongful gain. Officer responsible for conducting preliminary inquiry reported in its preliminary report that it appears that petitioners stood benefited by not conducting any proceedings against the accused persons as such, they neither reported the matter to the higher authorities nor made any entry in the daily diary report. 2. After having received aforesaid report of preliminary inquiry (Annexure A-9), Superintendent of Police, Shimla in terms of provisions contained under Rule 16.38 of Punjab Police Rules proceeded to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioners after having obtained necessary permission from District Magistrate Shimla. Vide order dated 4.6.2005 (Annexure A-4), Superintendent of Police, Shimla suspended all the petitioners from service and thereafter vide order dated 17.6.2005 (Annexure A-5), appointed Sh. Virender Singh Kanwar, Additional Superintendent of Police City), Shimla as inquiry officer. Above named Inquiry Officer immediately after his being appointed as Inquiry Officer served the petitioners with a charge sheet (Annexure A-6), levelling therein following charges against them and called upon all the delinquent officials i.e. petitioners to submit their reply within seven days of the receipt of the charges as well as list of prosecution witnesses. "Charges Sheet" 1. You namely HC Sanjeev Kumar No. 4 were posted as such in P.S. Sadar, Shimla on 23/24.5.2005. On the said night, you were on JDO duty. You alongwith HC Ashwani Kumar No. 139 and C. Manoj Kumar No. 1390 had gone to hotel Chand, Ganj Bazar from the P.S. on receiving phone call from there. But you failed to enter a report to this effect in the Daily Diary which you should have done as per the requirement of the rules. By doing so, you have committed violation of the Police rules. 2. You alongwith HC Ashwani Kumar No. 139 and C. Manoj Kumar No. 1390 went to hotel 'Chand' in Ganj Bazar, Shimla in the night intervening 23/24.5.2005 where the hotel manager Shri Gabbar Singh was gambling with 4/5 other persons. When at around 3 a.m., you conducted raid on the said hotel, the gamblers stopped gambling throwing around the money. You all the three police officials collected about Rs. 20,000/- and handed over the same to hotel manager Shri Gabbar Singh besides handing over the belonging of the other gamblers to them without taking any legal proceedings against them. When at around 3 a.m., you conducted raid on the said hotel, the gamblers stopped gambling throwing around the money. You all the three police officials collected about Rs. 20,000/- and handed over the same to hotel manager Shri Gabbar Singh besides handing over the belonging of the other gamblers to them without taking any legal proceedings against them. Such act on your part makes your conduct suspectful as you have acted in contravention of the rules. 3. You, HC Sanjeev Kumar did not inform any of your superiors regarding the intimation qua gambling inside a closed place, neither obtained the warrants for conducting the raid as per the rules. You went to the place of occurrence at your own and did not conduct any proceedings there. It shows that you HC Sanjeev Kumar No. 4 alongwith your co-officials raided the aforesaid hotel with an intent to draw wrongful benefit/advantage and appears to have actually taken wrongful/illegal advantage by not taking any action against the guilty. Such an act on your part shows that you have indulged in indiscipline and gross misconduct thereby indicating that you are in incapable and unworthy police officials. 4. During the course of preliminary inquiry, the Inquiry officer-cum-Dy. Superintendent of Police (City) Shimla, got conducted an identification parade on 31.5.2005 by the persons gambling in the hotel 'Chand' during the night intervening 23/24.5.2005 in order to know about the police officials with certainty who had gone to hotel 'Chand' for conducting the raid. In the said identification parade, your have been identified by one Sh. Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Ratti Ram Bhardwaj, R/o village Bijua, P.S. Jubri (Dhami), Tehsil and District Shimla before the witnesses." 3. Before reply to aforesaid charge sheet could be submitted by the Delinquent officials i.e. petitioners, Inquiry Officer, as named hereinabove, furnished charges in brief to the petitioners calling upon them to submit the reply within two days. All the delinquent officials i.e. petitioners filed reply to aforesaid charges served to them in brief. Copy of one reply is given by petitioner Sanjeev Kumar stands placed on record as Annexure A-8, perusal whereof reveals that petitioners specifically denied factum with regard to gambling, if any, played by the Manager of 'Chand' hotel with other occupants of the hotel in their presence, rather they stated in the reply that on 23rd/24th.5.2005, telephonic call was received from Sh. Gabbar Singh that some boys after having consumed liquor are making nuisance and as such, they went to the hotel, but however, when they reached the reception of the hotel none was found there and as such there was no question for them to initiate any proceedings. Inquiry Officer after having conducted detailed inquiry submitted the inquiry report dated 14.9.2005 (Annexure A-9), wherein he formulated following points for determination:- "1. Whether HC Ashwani Kumar No. 139 and HC Sanjeev Kumar No. 4 were posted respectively as MHC and Investigation Officer at P.S. Sadar on 23/24.5.2005, besides C. Manoj Kumar No. 1390? Statement of PW-5 and Ex. PW 5/A, 5/B, 5/E and 5/F prove that these officials were posted at P.S. Sadar. 2. Whether MHC, P.S. Sadar Ashwani Kumar No. 139, HC Sanjeev Kumar No. 4 and C. Manoj Kumar No. 1390 had gone at hotel 'Chand' Ganj Bazar, Shimla during the night intervening 23/24.5.2005 to conduct a raid over there? Statement of Ex. PW 1, 2 and Ex. PW 8/A and statement of the accused i.e. Mark-A, Mark-B and Mark-C prove that all the aforesaid police officials had gone at hotel 'Chand' during the night intervening 23/24.5.2005 on receiving telephonic information from the owner of the hotel. 3. Whether the aforesaid trio raided the aforesaid hotel to catch the gambles red handed? During departmental inquiry, it has not been found from the statements of any of the witnesses that when the aforesaid police officials reached 'Chand' hotel, anybody was found gambling there. However, from the Ext. PW 2/A which was recorded during the course of preliminary inquiry as also the information given to PW-6 and 7 by accused Vinod Kumar during investigation of Case No. 101/05, besides the information given/provided by the hotel owner, it is evident that in the said hotel, the incident such as gambling had certainly taken place and the aforesaid police officials had gone there on receiving information in this regard. 4. Whether the said police officials extorted money from the persons gambling in the hotel and rendered unlawful help to anyone? During the course of departmental inquiry no such evidence came forth on the basis of which it could be conclusively proved that these officials extorted money from anyone, however it is proved from PW-1 and Ext. PW 8/A and Ext. PW 2/A that they had returned to the hotel manager a sum of Rs. During the course of departmental inquiry no such evidence came forth on the basis of which it could be conclusively proved that these officials extorted money from anyone, however it is proved from PW-1 and Ext. PW 8/A and Ext. PW 2/A that they had returned to the hotel manager a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and the mobile phone, besides retaining some amount of money with them. But, this has not been confirmed by any independent witness. However, they certainly helped the hotel manager wrongfully. 5. Whether these police personnel took any cognizance of this entire occurrence for which they were legally and lawfully bound? On the basis of evidence and documents collected in this regard, it can be conclusively and safely said that these officials were legally bound to conduct necessary/required proceedings as per law with regard to the action taken by them, but they neither registered any case nor recorded any report in this behalf, which makes their conduct suspectful. Besides, it was incumbent upon them to intimate their superior officers and the SHO irrespective of the gravity of the offence." 4. On the basis of evidence led on record by the prosecution though Inquiry Officer concluded that during the course of Departmental Inquiry no such evidence came forth on the basis of which it could be conclusively proved that these officials extorted money from anyone. However, it is proved that they had returned to the hotel Manager sum of Rs. 20,000/- and mobile phone besides retaining some amount of money with them, but findings returned qua point No. 4 clearly reveals that factum with regard to money, if any, returned by the police officials to Manager of the hotel and retaining the some amount thereof was never confirmed by the independent witnesses. 5. Inquiry Officer concluded in his report that it was duty of the police officials/delinquent officials to register case lawfully, if the offences committed was cognizable and if it was non-cognizable then they should have made a report in the daily diary as per Rules regarding the proceedings taken. However, since delinquent officials failed to do so, suspicion may be raised that they might have acted in the said manner to cause wrongful gain to the Manager of the hotel as well as other persons involved in gambling. However, since delinquent officials failed to do so, suspicion may be raised that they might have acted in the said manner to cause wrongful gain to the Manager of the hotel as well as other persons involved in gambling. Inquiry Officer having found petitioners contravened the police Rules held them guilty of dereliction of duty, indiscipline and negligence in performing duties and submitted the report to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla. 6. After having received aforesaid inquiry report, Superintendent of Police, Shimla served show cause notice dated 24.9.2005 (Annexure A-10) upon the delinquent officials (petitioners) calling upon them to show cause as to why their three years of approved service should not be forfeited for annual increments with cumulative effect. Though, reply to the show cause notice was submitted within the stipulated time denying all the charges framed against them, but yet Superintendent of Police vide order dated 19.11.2005 (Annexure A-12) ordered for the forfeiture of three years of approved services of the petitioners permanently for the purpose of annual increments. Besides above, Superintendent of Police, Shimla also ordered that delinquent officials shall not be entitled to anything else during the period 4.6.2005 to 21.6.2005, except the allowance they have already received. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied on account of aforesaid order passed by Superintendent of Police, Shimla, all the petitioners preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Annexure A-13), however, such appeal of them was also rejected vide order dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure A-14) passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Shimla. Petitioners laid further challenge to aforesaid order passed by Appellate authority by way of revision filed by them under Punjab Police Rules to the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, who also vide order dated 19.6.2006 (Annexure A-16), dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of punishment passed by Superintendent of Police, Shimla. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of revision petition by Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, petitioners again preferred mercy petition to the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, but such mercy petition filed by them was also came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.5.2007 (Annexure A-18). 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of revision petition by Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, petitioners again preferred mercy petition to the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, but such mercy petition filed by them was also came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.5.2007 (Annexure A-18). In the aforesaid background, all the petitioners approached the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 2236 of 2007, however on account of abolishment of erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, case came to be transferred to this Court and stands registered as CWPOA No. 226 of 2019. 9. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record carefully. 10. Before ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of the submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties vis-à-vis prayer made in the instant petition, it would be apt to elaborate upon the scope of judicial review in departmental inquires/proceedings while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. By now it is well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be ground for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. However, courts can interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala-fide or based on extraneous considerations. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 , wherein it has been held as under:- "7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in (2011) 4 SCC 584 the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in (2011) 4 SCC 584 the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1995 (6) SCC 749 , Union of India v. G. Gunayuthan, 1997 (7) SCC 463 , and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana, 1999 (5) SCC 762 , High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shahsi Kant S. Patil, 2001 (1) SCC 416). XX XX XX 12. The fact that the criminal court subsequently acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceedings invalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. This is more so when the departmental proceedings are more proximate to the incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings.' The findings by the criminal court will have no effect on previously concluded domestic enquiry. This is more so when the departmental proceedings are more proximate to the incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings.' The findings by the criminal court will have no effect on previously concluded domestic enquiry. An employee who allows the findings in the enquiry and the punishment by the disciplinary authority to attain finality by non-challenge, cannot after several years, challenge the decision on the ground that subsequently, the criminal court has acquitted him." 12. Reliance is also placed upon the latest judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in The State of Karnataka and another v. N. Ganga Raj, Civil Appeal No. 8071 of 2014, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while taking into consideration aforesaid law laid in earlier judgments has held as under:- "13. In another judgment reported as Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 , this Court held that while re-appreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings: "13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;. (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (iv) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (v) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience," 14. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment reported as Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 , wherein this Court held that if the disciplinary authority records a finding that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which is unreasonably arrived at, the Writ Court could interfere with the finding of the disciplinary proceedings. We do not find that even on touchstone of that test, the Tribunal or the High Court could interfere with the findings recorded by the disciplinary (2015) 2 SCC 610 : 2017 2 SCC 308 authority. It is not the case of no evidence or that the findings are perverse. We do not find that even on touchstone of that test, the Tribunal or the High Court could interfere with the findings recorded by the disciplinary (2015) 2 SCC 610 : 2017 2 SCC 308 authority. It is not the case of no evidence or that the findings are perverse. The finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct has been interfered with only on the ground that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the Department. The discrepancies in the evidence will not make it a case of no evidence. The Inquiry Officer has appreciated the evidence and returned a finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct. 13. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another v. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases 72, wherein it has been held as under:- "20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/Authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are base on no evidence, and or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topics and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to few decisions of this Court on this topic viz., State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, 1963 (3) SCR 25, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao, 1976(1) SCR 521 , Corporation of City of Nagpur and another v. Ramachandra, 1981 (3) SCR 22 and Nelson Motis v. Union of India and another, AIR 1992 SC 1981 ." 14. Now being guided by aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, this Court proceeds to decide the controversy at hand. 15. Now being guided by aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, this Court proceeds to decide the controversy at hand. 15. Precisely, the challenge to aforesaid impugned orders awarding punishment to the petitioners is on following grounds:-- (i) Charge sheet, if any, on the basis of preliminary inquiry conducted on the orders of Superintendent of Police, Shimla could have been/ought to have been issued by the appointing authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Shimla, but since in the case at hand charge sheet came to be served/issued by the inquiry officer, consequent disciplinary proceedings stands vitiated, as a result of which, penalty imposed by appointing authority on the basis of final inquiry report submitted by inquiry officer cannot be allowed to sustain. (ii) Since inquiry officer in his report had categorically concluded that no conclusive evidence has come on record on the basis of which it can be said that delinquent officials extorted money from anyone, there was no occasion, if any, to hold officials guilty of dereliction of their duties, indiscipline and negligence in performing duties. (iii) Findings given in preliminary inquiry or statements recorded during preliminary inquiry could not have been made basis by the inquiry officer while concluding guilt, if any, of the delinquent officer in the department proceedings. 16. Having carefully perused the provisions contained under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules 1934, this Court finds that if very preliminary inquiry of investigation to the complaint alleging the commission of an offence by enrolled police officer with his official relations with the public, establishes a prima-facie case, a judicial prosecution shall normally follow, where however Superintendent of Police proposes to proceed in the case departmentally, the concurrence of District Magistrate shall be obtained. When investigation of such a complaint establishes a prima-facie case and when it is decided to proceed departmentally the procedure prescribed in the Rule 16.24 shall be followed. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, which reads as under:- 16.24 Procedure in departmental enquiries.- (1) The following procedure shall be followed in departmental enquiries:- (i) The police officer accused of misconduct shall be brought before an officer empowered to punish him, or such superior officer as the Superintendent may direct to conduct the enquiry. That officer shall record and read out to the accused officer a statement summarizing the alleged misconduct in such a way as to give full notice of the circumstances in regard to which evidence is to be recorded. A copy of the statement will also be supplied to the accused officer free of charge. (ii) If the accused police officer at this stage admits the misconduct alleged against him, the officer conducting the enquiry may proceed forthwith to frame a charge, record the accused officer's plea and any statement he may wish to make in extenuation and to record a final order, if it is within his power to do so, or a finding to be forwarded to an officer empowered to decide the case. When the allegations are such as can form the basis of a criminal charge, the Superintendent shall decide at this stage, whether the accused shall be tried departmentally first and judicially thereafter. (iii) If the accused police officer does not admit the misconduct, the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record such evidence, oral and documentary, in proof of the accusation, as is available and necessary to support the charge. Whenever possible, witnesses shall be examined direct, and in the presence of the accused, who shall be given opportunity to take notes of their statements and cross-examine them. The officer conducting the enquiry is empowered, however, to bring on to the record the statement of any witness whose presence cannot, in the opinion of such officer, be procured without undue delay and expense or inconvenience, if he considers such statement necessary, and provided that it has been recorded and attested by a police officer superior in rank to the accused officer or by a magistrate, and is signed by the person making it. This statement shall also be read out to the accused officer and he shall be given an opportunity to take notes. The accused shall be bound to answer any questions which the enquiring officer may see fit to put to him with a view to elucidating the facts referred to in statements or documents brought on the record as herein provided." 17. The accused shall be bound to answer any questions which the enquiring officer may see fit to put to him with a view to elucidating the facts referred to in statements or documents brought on the record as herein provided." 17. Having carefully perused the provisions contained under aforesaid Rule 16.24, this Court finds substantial force in the submission made by learned Additional Advocate General that Superintendent of Police may direct to conduct inquiry against police official accused of misconduct and inquiry officer appointed by the Superintendent officer shall record and readout to the accused officer a statement summarizing the alleged misconduct. Normally, as per service jurisprudence charge sheet is issued by appointing authority on the basis of preliminary inquiry conducted in a particular matter, but in the case at hand there is specific provisions made in the Punjab Police Rules to deal with the departmental inquiries of police officials charged of misconduct. Rules 16.24, as reproduced hereinabove, clearly suggests that police officer accused of misconduct would be brought before an officer empowered to punish him, who in turn would appoint an officer, who is competent to record and readout officer accused of a statement summarizing the alleged misconduct. In the case at hand no doubt, preliminary inquiry came to be instituted on the orders passed by Superintendent of Police, who subsequently after having received report of preliminary inquiry deemed it necessary to appoint inquiry officer. Inquiry officer appointed by Superintendent of Police served delinquent officials i.e petitioners with the charge sheet. Since Rule 16.24 empowers/authorized inquiry officer to serve charge sheet, no fault, if any, can be found with the action of Inquiry officer inasmuch as he after having received order from the Superintendent of Police proceeded to frame charge sheet. 18. If the inquiry report given by the Inquiry officer is read in its entirety vis-à-vis charges framed against delinquent officials, this Court is compelled to agree with Sh. 18. If the inquiry report given by the Inquiry officer is read in its entirety vis-à-vis charges framed against delinquent officials, this Court is compelled to agree with Sh. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner that once Inquiry officer on the basis of totality of evidence led on record by the prosecution had come to the conclusion that no such evidence has come forth on the basis of which, it can be conclusively proved that these officials extorted money from anyone and they had raided the hotel, there was no occasion for him to hold delinquent officials, guilty of dereliction of duty, indiscipline and negligence in performing duties. If five points formulated by the Inquiry officer while conducting inquiry are perused vis-à-vis evidence led on record by prosecution to prove the guilt of delinquent officials, it appears that on the date of alleged incident delinquent officials, after having received telephonic call from the Manager of Chand hotel visited the hotel, but by that time boys responsible for making nuisance had already gone to sleep. Though, case of the prosecution against the delinquent officials is that petitioner Sanjeev Kumar after having received telephonic call from the Manager of Chand hotel raided the hotel and confiscated sum of Rs. 21000/- but there is no such evidence available on record. As per prosecution, delinquent officials returned 6-6½ thousands rupees to the Manager of the hotel and rupees 200/- each to other 4-5 persons, whereas misappropriated remaining amount of Rs. 14,500/-. However, evidence adduced on record nowhere proves that any gambling took place in the presence of delinquent officials, rather evidence suggests that by the time petitioners reached there all the boys, who were allegedly making nuisance had gone to sleep. If the statement of PW-2, Gabbar Singh, who happened to be Manager of Chand hotel is perused and who had given intimation to the delinquent officials with regard to the alleged incident, has nowhere supported the case of the prosecution, rather he supported the version put forth by the delinquent officials that since some boys after having consumed liquor were making nuisance, he gave telephonic call to petitioner Sanjeev Kumar, but before police reached at the reception of the hotel, all the boy's had gone to sleep. 19. 19. There is no dispute that on the date of alleged incident all the delinquent officials had visited the hotel concerned after having received telephonic call from the Manager Sh. Gabbar Singh, but there is no evidence that delinquent officials raided the hotel after having received complaint of gambling, rather material available on record suggests that they had just gone to the hotel on the complaint of nuisance being created by some boys under the influence of liquor. Interestingly, if the evidence led on record by the prosecution is perused in its entirety allegation of gambling cannot be said to have been proved, rather none of the prosecution witness have admitted the factum with regard to gambling, if any, at the time of alleged incident. All the prosecution witnesses, especially. PW-2, Gabbar Singh, at whose instance police had reached the spot, has categorically stated that since some boys after having consumed liquor were making nuisance, he telephonically informed petitioner Head Constable Sanjeev Kumar, who thereafter reached the spot with three police officials, but by that time boys responsible for making nuisance had gone to sleep. Interestingly, in the case at hand prosecution with a view to prove gambling tried to introduce a story that SHO, Dhalli, informed SHO, Sadar that one person Vinod Kumar during investigation revealed that he has lost entire stolen money in the gambling, which took place in hotel Chand in the intervening night of 23rd/24th.5.2005. However, above named Vinod Kumar never came to be cited as prosecution witness. If the aforesaid information was shared by Vinod Kumar, it is not understood why prosecution failed to cite Vinod Kumar as prosecution witness. Though, SHO, Dhalli has been cited as prosecution witness, but his statement is of no relevance for the reasons that when accused Vinod Kumar was very much available attempt should have been made by the prosecution to cite him prosecution witness to prove the factum with regard to gambling or to corroborate the version of SHO, Dhalli. 20. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds from the entire evidence led on record by the prosecution that it miserably failed to prove factum with regard to gambling as well as raid, if any, conducted by delinquent officials on the complaint made by PW-2, Gabbar Singh. Similarly, there is no evidence, worth credence, available on record suggestive of the fact that delinquent officials misappropriated sum of rupees 14,500/-. Similarly, there is no evidence, worth credence, available on record suggestive of the fact that delinquent officials misappropriated sum of rupees 14,500/-. Prosecution with a view to prove the return of sum of Rs. 20,000/- to Manager by delinquent officials placed heavy reliance on the statement of PW-1, SHO, Sadar and PW-8, K.G. Kapoor, who had conducted preliminary inquiry. Ex. PW 8/A is the report of preliminary inquiry, whereas' Ex. PW 2/A is the statement made of PW-2, Gabbar Singh during preliminary inquiry. On the basis of aforesaid preliminary inquiry as well as statement of Manager of Chand hotel given during preliminary inquiry Ex. PW 2/A, Superintendent of Police deemed it necessary to constitute departmental inquiry and appointed Inquiry officer. Inquiry officer while conducting departmental inquiry could not have placed reliance, if any, on the report given in preliminary inquiry as well as statement, if any, recorded during preliminary inquiry. Once, it stands duly proved on record that when delinquent officials reached reception of the hotel, all the boys responsible for creating nuisance had gone to sleep and no one was found involved in gambling, there was no occasion, if any, for delinquent officials to make entry in daily diary report. Had the delinquent officials caught persons red handed indulging in gambling, they were under obligation to make entry in daily diary report and report the matter to superior authorities, so that case under gambling Act could have been registered against accused. Since, nothing was found on the spot, there was no reason for delinquent officials to either inform the superior authorities or to make entry in the daily diary and hence finding recorded by the investigating officer in this regard holding delinquent officials negligent in service is wholly untenable and cannot be allowed to sustain. If the inquiry report given by the Inquiry officer is read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that Inquiry officer while holding the delinquent officials guilty of dereliction of duty, indiscipline and negligence in performing duties relied heavily upon" the findings returned in preliminary inquiry as well as statement made therein by Gabbar Singh, Manger of Chand hotel and SHO, Sadar. Even, if the preliminary inquiry placed on record is perused, it nowhere suggest that Inquiry officer responsible to give preliminary inquiry conducted in depth inquiry, rather he on the basis of complaint furnished by the SHO to the Superintendent of Police as well as statement recorded by him of Manager of the hotel suggested involvement of delinquent officials in the alleged crime, whereafter Superintendent of Police deemed it necessary to conduct detailed departmental inquiry. 21. By now it is well settled that action, if any, taken prior to disciplinary inquiry shall have no relevance or bearing upon the final disciplinary proceedings. Preliminary inquiry is to do nothing with the inquiry conducted after issuance of charge sheet. Very purpose of conducting preliminary inquiry is to find out whether disciplinary inquiry should be initiated against the delinquent officials or not. However, once fullfledged disciplinary inquiry is conducted, preliminary inquiry would lost its relevance. However, in the case at hand, entire inquiry report furnished by Inquiry officer in the departmental proceedings is based upon the preliminary inquiry report given by the Inquiry officer responsible to conduct preliminary inquiry, wherein he merely had suggested involvement, if any, of delinquent officials in the alleged crime, however involvement, if any, of delinquent officials against the alleged crime was to be proved in accordance with law in full-fledged disciplinary proceedings. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 299, wherein it has been held as under:- "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the petitioner has not committed any misappropriation and that he was forced to deposit the money. We cannot accept the contention in view of the fact that the petitioner himself had deposited the amount. It is then contended that the preliminary enquiry was not properly conducted and, therefore, the enquiry is vitiated by principles of natural justice. We find no force in the contention. The preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after the issue of the charge-sheet. The former action would be to find whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. After full-fledged enquiry was held, the preliminary enquiry had lost its importance. 4. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. The former action would be to find whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. After full-fledged enquiry was held, the preliminary enquiry had lost its importance. 4. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed." 22. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that inquiry report furnished by the Inquiry officer is totally contrary to the evidence led on record by the prosecution and same merely being based upon preliminary inquiry cannot be held to be legal one and accordingly cannot be allowed to sustain. This Court finds from the record that appellate authority as well as revisional authority while considering appeal as well as revision petition filed by delinquent officials have dealt with matter in slip shod manner and have not bothered to look into the grounds raised by the petitioner vis-à-vis record of disciplinary proceedings. Had appellate authority as well as revisional authority applied its mind, probably petitioner would not have been compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. Neither appellate authority nor revisional jurisdiction have specifically dealt with grounds raised in the appeal as well as revision petition and as such, orders being passed by them being totally non-speaking and bereft of any reasoning deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 23. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, instant petition is allowed and Charge Sheet (Annexure A-6), charges in brief (Annexure A-7), inquiry report(Annexure A-9), order dated 19.11.2005 (Annexure A-12), order dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure A-14), order dated 19.6.2006 (Annexure A-16) and order dated 29.5.2007(Annexure A-18) are quashed and set-aside and petitioners are held entitled to all the consequential benefits. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.