JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition and Special Civil Application No.2328 of 2009 are arising out of the dispute between the emloyee-employer. This petition is regarding the main dispute while Special Civil Application No.2328 of 2009 is an offshoot. However, with consent of learned Advocates all the parties, the petitions are taken up for joint hearing. 2. Special Civil Application No.780 of 2009 is filed for mainly reliefs as under:- “A. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Certiorary or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned decision dt. 18.2.2008 on the part of Commissioner closing the file of petitioner and not taking actions against the management, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, & violation of Art.14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and declare that the Commissioner has failed to discharge his statutory duties hence direct him to pay the special cost and compensation to the petitioner for the mental torture by the management due to failure on his part. B. Be pleased to declare the action of respondents management to initiate departmental actions against the petitioner and compelling her to discharge the hazardous duties due to which there is adverse effect to the petitioner, as illegal, unjust, malafide and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct the respondents to grant all the benefits to the petitioner as no charge-sheet was issued and further direct to pay compensation to the petitioner for injury. C. Be pleased to declare that petitioner should be offered alternate employment by respondents and she should be treated as on duty for all purposes and further direct respondents to pay the salary with all consequential benefits to the petitioner treating the petitioner as on duty for all purposes. D. Be pleased to set aside the order passed by the disc.authority at Annexure Z/5 & Z/8 respectively, and further direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits of the applicant as if the order of the penalty was not issued to the applicant and pay arrears with 18%.” 3. Special Civil Application No.2328 of 2009 is disposed of by a separate order. 4. Special Civil Application No.2328 of 2009 is disposed of by a separate order. 4. It is a case where the petitioner was issued an order of appointment dated 31-07-2001, appointing her as Junior Technical Assistant (Geology) on term basis for a period of 4 years in scale of Rs.4700/-. It is submitted that after about four and half years, the respondent No.3 issued further order dated 14-12-2005 appointing petitioner on fixed tenure basis as skilled operator Geology. 4.1 It is submitted that petitioner was assigned the duties to prepare pellets which is being hard work, not to be assigned to a lady employee. The duties to be performed by petitioner includes collection of samples of sand, coal, clay, shale etc., sorting of samples (coal & carbonaceous shale), preparation of pellets using mixture of araldite & hardener i.e. epoxy resin, pour mixture in plastic mould made of plastic test tube. Vaseline is applied in inner wall of mould, removing pellets from mound with pushing the dried pellets, thump pressure to be exercised to remove pellets from mould and when it is hitted on wall and not coming out, to loosen it with thump pressure and remove it. 4.2 It is submitted that the Scientists have to do research on pellates and will examine the particles of coal & shale and on that basis report will be submitted for the land where it is capable of digging and how much percentage of oil will be available etc. & to find out vitmite reflectence. It is submitted that for such important nature of work which is known as hard and hazardous no lady employee be employed on such machine and same is prohibited under the provisions of law. Though ONGC is running Regional Training Institutes, no formal or informal training is given to the petitioner, no operation manual of the machine is provided to petitioner to avoid dangers arising and precautions to be taken. 4.3 It is submitted that petitioner due to hard work by applying her thumb pressure on pellete which had badly affected the hand of petitioner and she was suffering acute pain and swelling on palm. Petitioner was constrained to approach the Medical officer. The petitioner was examined by Dr. Yogesh Thakker who is on penal of ONGC. 4.3 It is submitted that petitioner due to hard work by applying her thumb pressure on pellete which had badly affected the hand of petitioner and she was suffering acute pain and swelling on palm. Petitioner was constrained to approach the Medical officer. The petitioner was examined by Dr. Yogesh Thakker who is on penal of ONGC. The Medical Officer has given his report on 14.10.2006 saying that condition of petitioner is very critical she should either change the present job or to leave it. 4.4 It is submitted that in light of above injury because of discharging heavy duties without proper infrastructure facilities, petitioner had requested for change of job. Copy of the representation addressed to the General Manager dated 25.10.2006. It is submitted that petitioner addressed another representation on 3.11.2006 reiterating and requesting for change of job function of petitioner in light of medical report submitted. 4.5 It is her case that the respondents are fully aware about the sufferings of petitioner and continue the same work will further damage her thumb, but yet no steps are taken far redressal of grievances. 4.6 It is submitted that the Corporation has addressed a Memorandum on 13.4.07 to the petitioner alleging that application of petitioner dated 25.10.06 addressed to the G.M. was not received in the office of G.M. that same was submitted before the controlling officer to change the job due to heavy work suffered during job. That petitioner addressed a letter dated 3.11.06 to the Chair-person, WFD Office to change her nature of work on account of medical ground and it is stated that the DGM (MS) has decided to examine her by the Medical Board. Petitioner was informed to appear before the Medical Board but did not appear on 5.2.07 and conveyed her unwillingness to appear before the Medical Board. 4.7 The petitioner on 18.10.2006 submitted representation to the Chairperson Women's Development Forum, ONGCL, Vadodara, an internal body who looks after all types of complaints of women Officers /employees in accordance with the Vishaka Guidelines of the Honourable Supreme Court of India and point No. 5 & 7 of the HR Manual of ONGC. WDF comments were “May kindly like to see for sympathetic consideration on compassionate grounds. She may be optimally utilized in RTI till she finally recovers”. WDF comments were “May kindly like to see for sympathetic consideration on compassionate grounds. She may be optimally utilized in RTI till she finally recovers”. That the WDF Chairperson had also sent copy of the representation dated 18.10.2006 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vadodara. The petitioner also wrote to GM, HR ONGCL on 25.10.2006 with request for change of job due to injury to her right hand. Since there was no response from ONGCL and Labour Commissioner, Vadodara on the recommendation of the WDF, the petitioner requested the National Commission for Women, New Delhi to look into her grievance. 4.8 It is submitted that respondents instead of attending to her grievance dated 25.10.2006 formed a corporate medical committee/board and asked the petitioner to appear before the same on 2.2.2007 & 21.02.2007. However, the petitioner vide letter dated 2.2.2007 addressed to the DGM(MS) Vadodara mentioned that she had submitted medical certificate from ONGC panel Orthopedic doctor and requested for action against the concerned ONGCL officers who had assigned the work causing injury to her. That the petitioner requested for institution of independent impartial inquiry as per the NCW guidelines on the issue of her injury, and gender discrimination faced by her. The constitution of the board by ONGCL was considered by the petitioner as not independent and impartial and thus the petitioner did not appear before the board. 4.9 It is submitted that the charges by the respondents vide their chargesheet dated 23.07.2007 are an act of retaliation against a women employee since she had submitted her request for change of job due to injury to her hand and was an act to suppress the issue of injury. The petitioner has simply requested for change of role due to above stated facts. 4.10 To the charges against the petitioner he submitted his response that:- “Tampering with official records by respondents: The diary dispatch clerk and superiors had allegedly destroyed the petitioner's application dated 25.10.2006 submitted through proper channel and even applied white fluid in the diary record entry. Why was this done if the respondents did not have any malafide retaliatory mindset. The board formed was not as per ONGCL standing order and CDA rules and was not independent and impartial. Why was this done if the respondents did not have any malafide retaliatory mindset. The board formed was not as per ONGCL standing order and CDA rules and was not independent and impartial. The standing order dated 18.10.2006 regarding Medical Board formation was provided to the petitioner during the course of Inquiry by the Presenting Officer which finds mention on Page No.265 of SCA No.780/2009. Subsequently, under the directions of this Court to the Disability Commissioner Gujarat, the petitioner underwent medical examination by two independent government medical Boards headed by Civil Surgeons of Civil Hospitals of Vadodara and Ahmedabad. The certificate state that partial temporary disability of 15% which points to attributability of the injury to nature of work given to the petitioner as she was medically fit at the time of joining as stated in para 1 above. The Petitioner responded to the respondent memo dated 13.04.2007 and the same was not received by the DGM Head (Geology), a fact which has been admitted during the hearing by the respondents. The respondents were assigning same hazardous work to the petitioner despite knowledge of the injury and for which she had submitted request for job role change and thus the charge is an act of clear gender bias and retaliation and high handedness of the superiors. Also subsequent appointment of Ex DIG CBI trained bureaucrat and legal expert as inquiry Officer. That the daily order sheet dated 24.09.2007 mentions petitioner seeking permission to engage a legal practitioner as her Defense Assistant. Also allowing prosecution to produce additional documents and additional witnesses by the Inquiry officer was an attempt to cover the latches in the charge sheet. 4.11 Learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon decision of the Apex Court in case of S.R.Tewari Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 , to submit that there is a scope for judicial review when punishment is shockingly disproportionate. 5. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioner on 18th October, 2006 for the first time directly wrote a letter to the Chairperson of Women’s Development Forum (WDF) requesting for change of work assigned to her on the ground that she was suffering from alleged medical problem due to the work assigned to her. 5. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioner on 18th October, 2006 for the first time directly wrote a letter to the Chairperson of Women’s Development Forum (WDF) requesting for change of work assigned to her on the ground that she was suffering from alleged medical problem due to the work assigned to her. It was further alleged therein that this difficulty had persisted since 2005 that is nearly for a period of two years. It is pertinent to note that there is nothing on record showing this fact of alleged defective machines to either her controlling officer or even the incharge of the section where the petitioner was engaged. Thus it is a fact that the petitioner never chose to resolve alleged issue internally and directly approached the WDF. 5.1 It is submitted that she then allegedly wrote the same letter to General Manager (HR) on 25th October, 2006 inter alia mentioning that the same was sent through proper channel though factually this was incorrect. The petitioner thereafter addressed a further letter to the WDF on 3rd November, 2006 again falsely representing that her earlier letter was sent through proper channel in the office. Pursuant to this the WDF marked the letter to the Basin Manager. The Basin Manager on receipt of the letter forwarded by WDF directed constitution of Medical Board for examining the petitioner’s Issue. The petitioner however refused to appear before the Medical Board on 5th February, 2007 and 21st February, 2007 inter alia claiming that she was not required to appear. Since the petitioner was not complying with requests and was even not performing her duties two memorandum were issued to her to show cause. The petitioner thereafter refused to accept work assignment and other communication through proper channel on 17" May, 2007 and thereafter again on 18™ May, 2007. 5.2 It is submitted in view of the above acts of gross insubordination and indiscipline, the respondent was constrained to issue a memorandum dated 23rd July, 2007 constituting an inquiry for the misconduct. The petitioner thereafter refused to accept work assignment and other communication through proper channel on 17" May, 2007 and thereafter again on 18™ May, 2007. 5.2 It is submitted in view of the above acts of gross insubordination and indiscipline, the respondent was constrained to issue a memorandum dated 23rd July, 2007 constituting an inquiry for the misconduct. 5.3 It is submitted that after a full-fledged inquiry wherein not only was the petitioner supplied all the documents and permitted to cross examine all witnesses and also permitted to adduce evidence the inquiry officer who was a retired DIG of police CBI vide report dated 28th December, 2007 held that all the charges against the petitioner stood proved and that the omissions and commissions on the part of the petitioner revealed that she behaved in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and committed gross misconduct of insubordination or disobedience which was subversive to the discipline and good behavior on her part and thereby she contravened Rule 3(j) read with sub-rules 1, 7, 9(ii) and 20 of Schedule-II of the ONGC CDA Rules, 1994. 5.4 The said report was forwarded to the petitioner vide memo dated 25th February, 2008 calling upon the petitioner to make representation thereto. The petitioner chose not to respond thereto and hence impugned order dated 14th May, 2008 was passed. Thus the respondent Corporation had not only conducted the inquiry properly and in compliance with principles of natural justice but the petitioner was also given opportunity to respond to the inquiry report which she chose not to do. 5.5 It is submitted that the petitioner’s attempt at invoking sympathy from the Hon’ble Court inter alia contending that the petitioner has suffered some alleged disability during the course of her employment is also bereft of merit in view of the fact that the petitioner primarily never chose to address the Corporation regarding the same and thereafter refused to appear before duly constituted Medical Board which could have gone into the facts alleged by the petitioner and resolve the issue. It is also tried to note that the petitioner’s excessive reliance on the certificate of Dr. It is also tried to note that the petitioner’s excessive reliance on the certificate of Dr. Yogesh Thakkar as well as certificate dated 22nd January, 2008 issued by the Medical Superintendent Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad is thoroughly misconceived in as much as the petitioner refused to get herself examined by the medical board to assess the fact that so called disability was in any manner relatable to the work that she was required to perform. 6. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that clashes of ego between the petitioner on one hand and the concerned employees of the respondent-Corporation is at the root of this litigation. Neither the officers of the respondent-Corporation nor the petitioner were really concerned with the interest of the establishment which was feeding them. 7. The petitioner has challenged order dated 14.05.2008 passed by the competent authority imposing penalty of removal from service which would not be disqualification for future employment under the Government or the Corporation’s /company owned and controlled by the Government as per Rule 34(ix) of the ONGC Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1994 as well as order dated 12.06.2008 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the petitioner’s appeal dated 26.05.2008 challenging order dated 14.05.2008. 8. The petitioner had since substantially long period of time been refusing to comply with various orders which had required issuance of charge sheet against the petitioner under the provisions of the ONGC Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules. The petitioner had been issued a show cause notice on 13.04.2007 and asked to show cause as to how the disciplinary action should not be initiated against the petitioner for various charges levelled against her. 9. The punishment of removal was inflicted and though not necessary, still to emphasis on the triviality of charges, the Court deems it fit to reproduce the same as under:- “Articles of charges framed against Ms.Abhilasha Joshi, Field Operator (Geology), ID No.77777. Ms Abhilasha Joshi, while functioning and posted as Field Operator (Geology) in RGL ONGC Vadodara w.e.f. 15/12/2005, has committed gross misconduct as much as under: 1. She has misrepresented facts to the extent that she has stated that she has given an application dated 25.10.2006 to GM (HR) through proper channel, whereas no such application has been received at GM’s office, which amounts to misrepresentation of facts. 2. She has misrepresented facts to the extent that she has stated that she has given an application dated 25.10.2006 to GM (HR) through proper channel, whereas no such application has been received at GM’s office, which amounts to misrepresentation of facts. 2. She refused to appeal before Medical Board on two occasions for assessing alleged injury suffered by her while on the job. 3. She failed to respond to the Memoranda dated 13/04/2017 and 03/05/2007. 4. She refused to accent work assignment and other official communications though Proper channel. Thus, Ms.Abhilasha Joshi, has rendered herself liable for disciplinary action under provisions contained at Sub Rule 1, 7, 9(ii) and 20 of Schedule II under Rule 3(j) of ONGC Conduct, Discipline & Appeals Rules 1994. Sd/- (P Vijaykumar) General Manager-Support Manager” 10. This Court is shocked to see to what extent the parties are ready to go to fan their respective ego. The issue started with an innocuous report of the petitioner to assign her a nature of work which would suit a female employee and perhaps had a valid reason of having suffered a minor deformity, which had a potential of becoming a permanent disability. Instead of attending the grievance of the employee and resolve it, the respondents thought it fit to take on the female employee and drive her to litigation. 11. From the case papers, it appears that on 13.04.2007, a memorandum was issued on the basis of application made by the petitioner to WDF, which in turn was forwarded to the respondent- Corporation for some action. The memorandum was issued to the petitioner calling upon her to remain present before a Medical Board constituted for the same purpose. The case of the petitioner was that the Medical Board was not constituted as per the requirement as the members of the Board did not comprise of proper medical persons. So, unilaterally, the petitioner chose to abstain from the Board whereas case of ONGC is that the medical disability was not genuine. Hence, the petitioner abstained. Be that at it may, this again was one of the grounds for inquiry as to why the petitioner was not willing to appear before the Board. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner at initial stage had produced a certificate about her disability at the time of application and that too of a Doctor who was on panel of ONGC. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner at initial stage had produced a certificate about her disability at the time of application and that too of a Doctor who was on panel of ONGC. Thereafter, continuing a Board for this purpose is not supported by any provision of Rule. Hence, the very ground to initiate inquiry on this point not available to the respondent- Corporation. 12. The another issue for inquiry was not sending her application dated 25.10.2006 through a proper channel. Not only this issue is blown out as proportioned by the respondent-ONGC but has also resulted in grave consequences for the petitioner who was removed from service. The examination of facts on record would indicate that the petitioner was not at fault. The evidence of witness Kiran Tiwari dated 26.10.2007 would indicate that the application dated 25.10.2006 was indeed given to this witness who was working as a Dairy Attendant and had made entry of this application marked to GM (HR) and entry was made in dispatch register. What happens thereafter is not of any concern of the petitioner. In fact, this witness also refers to interpolation in the entry made in the dispatch register in this regard. This evidence, in opinion of the Court, is crucial enough to exonerate the petitioner, but the respondent-ONGC has entered in the fact finding mission with a predetermined mind. This, according to the Court, was just a formality of ONGC on a foregone conclusion. 13. In case of Union of India & Ors. vs. P.Gunasekaran, reported in 2015 (2) SCC 610 , the Apex Court has dealt with the principle to interfere with the departmental proceedings, where, in para-12 it is held as under:- “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:…...” 13.1 In paras-12-(d), (e) and (f), it is held as under:- “d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;” 13.2 In the opinion of the Court, the facts of this case clearly fall in these parameters as stated above. 14. In case of S.R.Tewari (supra) has held in para-25 to 30 as under:- “25. In B.C. Chaturvedi V/s. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 484 , this Court after examining various its earlier decisions observed that in exercise of the powers of judicial review, the court cannot "normally" substitute its own conclusion or penalty. However, if the penalty imposed by an authority "shocks the conscience" of the court, it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and in exceptional and rare cases, in order to shorten the litigation, itself, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. While examining the issue of proportionality, court can also consider the circumstances under which the misconduct was committed. In a given case, the prevailing circumstances might have forced the accused to act in a certain manner though he had not intended to do so. The court may further examine the effect, if the order is set aside or substituted by some other penalty. However, it is only in very rare cases that the court might, to shorten the litigation, think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the Competent Authority. 26. The court may further examine the effect, if the order is set aside or substituted by some other penalty. However, it is only in very rare cases that the court might, to shorten the litigation, think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the Competent Authority. 26. In V. Ramana V/s. A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3417 , this Court considered the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found that it is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges and if the court comes to the conclusion that the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found to be "shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards." In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. However, in order to shorten the litigation, in exceptional and rare cases, the Court itself can impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. 27. In State of Meghalaya & Ors. V/s. Mecken Singh N. Marak, AIR 2008 SC 2862 , this Court observed that:- “13. …. A Court or a Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. 14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocks the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. (See also: Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. V/s. P. Jayaram Reddy, (2009) 2 SCC 681 ). 28. The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. (Vide: Union of India & Ors. V/s. Bodupalli Gopalaswami, (2011) 13 SCC 553 ; and Sanjay Kumar Singh V/s. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 1783 ). 29. In Union of India & Ors. V/s. R.K. Sharma, AIR 2001 SC 3053 , this Court explained the observations made in Ranjit Thakur (supra) observing that if the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh or strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference. However, the said observations in Ranjit Thakur (supra) are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate. It was held that only in extreme cases, which on their face, show perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate grounds. 30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. (Vide: Rajinder Kumar Kindra V/s. Delhi Administration, AIR 1984 SC 1805 ; Kuldeep Singh V/s. Commissioner of Police & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 677 ; Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao & Ors. V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh thr. (Vide: Rajinder Kumar Kindra V/s. Delhi Administration, AIR 1984 SC 1805 ; Kuldeep Singh V/s. Commissioner of Police & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 677 ; Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao & Ors. V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh thr. Secretary, AIR 2010 SC 589 ; and Babu V/s. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 ). 15. With regard to the charge of failure to respond to memorandum or refusing to accept assignment, the Court is inclined to observe that the turn of events against the petitioner only on the ground that she approached an independent forum for Women (WDF) with her grievance and steps taken thereafter by the respondent. She was already given a feeling that she is fighting a loosing battle. The conduct of the petitioner, though against the service ethics and relation of master-servant, but that in itself was not good enough to warrant removal. 16. The Court is therefore inclined to interfere by directing the respondents as under: I. The order of punishment of removal is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated to her original post. II. On the principle of “No work and No pay”, the petitioner will not be entitled to back wages. III. Considering the long drawn legal battle faced by the petitioner, the Court does not propose to inflict any other punishment with regard to the charge of not accepting the work. IV. The petitioner be placed at par with her contemporary co-employees in all aspects, but the benefits till the date of joining will be notional only. V. The petitioner will be entitled to regular salary as per the pay scale applicable and benefits therein as a regular employee from the date on which she now joins her service pursuant to this order. 17. The Court cannot help but observe that witch hunting agenda of the superior officer in initiating of elaborate proceedings for trivial issues for which the petitioner was charge sheeted and then appointing Ex-CBI officer of DIG Rank as Inquiry Officer as a part of such agenda, the Court can only imagine the amount of resources put behind this work for which the superior officers had nothing to loose. A pragmatic approach of such superior officer would have prevented the burden on the exchequer. A pragmatic approach of such superior officer would have prevented the burden on the exchequer. This Court directs the respondent-ONGC to make entry of this paragraph of this judgment and order in service record of the concerned officer after making due inquiry and after following principles of natural justice and affix responsibility on the officer/s who have initiated the proceedings against the petitioner. 18. The petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.