JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India for assailing the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench whereby, the Original Application No.290/00382/2018 with MA No.290/258/2018 filed by respondent-applicant Shri Rakesh Kumar was accepted and a direction was issued to the petitioners to reinstate the respondent-applicant with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are noted hereinbelow:- 3. The respondent-applicant was appointed as Fireman and was posted at 26, Ammunition Company, Jaisalmer w.e.f 15.02.2011. The petitioners-department issued a memorandum of charge sheet dated 16.05.2014 to the respondent-employee under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965) wherein he was charged with absence from duty without leave, disobedience of orders, intoxication during duty and altercation with staff. It is alleged that the memorandum of charge sheet was never served upon applicant. The inquiry officer conducted inquiry proceedings ex-parte against the respondent-employee holding him guilty of all the charges vide order dated 22.09.2015. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 21.07.2016 exercising powers conferred by Rule 15 CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 imposed penalty of removal from services upon the respondent-employee who preferred an Original Application against the order dated 21.07.2016 passed by disciplinary authority before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 08.08.2019 allowed the OA and the impugned order dated 21.07.2016 was quashed and set aside with a further direction to reinstate the respondent-applicant in service with all consequential benefits. 4. Shri Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned counsel representing the employer-petitioners, contended that the OA was filed by the respondent-applicant after a period of more than one year from the date of order without sufficient explanation for the delay. Further, the OA was filed without exhausting the remedy of appeal as provided under Rule 24 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. Therefore, the OA ought to have been dismissed solely on these grounds. He further contended that the memorandum of charge sheet dated 16.05.2014, containing four charges, prepared under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 was issued against applicant but the service thereof was deliberately avoided by the respondent-applicant. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer to inquire into the above mentioned charges vide order dated 21.08.2014. He further contended that the memorandum of charge sheet dated 16.05.2014, containing four charges, prepared under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 was issued against applicant but the service thereof was deliberately avoided by the respondent-applicant. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer to inquire into the above mentioned charges vide order dated 21.08.2014. The notice of inquiry was duly issued and served but the respondent-applicant chose not to participate in the inquiry proceedings. Thereupon, ex-parte inquiry proceedings were conducted by the inquiry officer on 21.10.2014. The report thereof was submitted to disciplinary authority for appropriate action vide letter dated 02.12.2014, holding the delinquent officer guilty of all the charges levelled against him. A memorandum dated 22.09.2015, containing proposal to impose punishment of removal from service along with requisite documents was sent to the respondent-employee who offered no response whatsoever. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 21.07.2016 imposed penalty of removal from service upon the respondent-applicant. It has been emphatically argued that the procedure provided for departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 was duly complied with in letter and spirit. Therefore, the order imposing penalty dated 21.07.2016 does not suffer from any infirmity and ought to have been upheld by the learned Tribunal. 5. Per contra, Shri S.K. Malik, representing the respondent-applicant contended that the charge sheet dated 16.05.2014 issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 along with requisite documents was never received by the respondent-applicant. The ex-parte proceedings were initiated by the inquiry officer without intimating the dates of hearing to the respondent-applicant. He further submitted that the inquiry proceedings were concluded ex-parte in an arbitrary manner holding the applicant guilty of the charges vide order dated 21.10.2014. The counsel further contended that the memorandum dated 22.09.2015 proposing imposition of penalty of removal from service was never served upon the applicant. Thereafter, order dated 21.07.2016 removing the respondent-applicant from service was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. 6. As regards the delay in filing of the OA, it is submitted that a miscellaneous application under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking condonation of delay was filed with the OA stating inter alia that copy of documents pertaining to inquiry proceedings were obtained by the wife of the respondent-applicant under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 29.10.2018. The delay was thus satisfactorily explained and is not attributable to the respondent-applicant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 provides that no order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 shall be imposed upon a central government employee except in the manner provided under this rule. Rule 14 (4) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 mandates the disciplinary authority to deliver a copy of articles of charge, the statements of the imputations of the misconduct/misbehavior and the list of documents and witnesses by which, each article or charges is proposed to be proved against central government employee. Thereafter, the delinquent officer shall submit a written statement in his defense, within such period as may be specified and state whether he decides to be heard in person. 9. Learned Tribunal, in its order dated 08.08.2019 had recorded that despite directions, the petitioners-respondents failed to provide satisfactory proof of service of the memorandum of charge sheet upon respondent-applicant. Even in the present writ petition, no document has been annexed to prove service of memorandum of charge sheet upon respondent-applicant. This is sufficient to establish that the memorandum of charge sheet along with requisite documents under Rule 14 (4) (supra) was not served upon the delinquent officer-respondent. Therefore, the mandatory procedure for departmental inquiry provided in Rule 14 (4) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 had not been complied with. 10. Rule 14 (20) of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 lays down that, when the delinquent officer does not submit his written statement of defense within the time specified or does not appear before the inquiry officer, ex-parte inquiry can be ordered by the inquiry officer only after recording reasons for doing so. However, this does not absolve the inquiry officer from the responsibility to examine the records and witnesses so as to enable him to come to a valid conclusion whether the charges have been proved or not. The inquiry officer after making necessary investigation into the charges has to ensure that the conclusions/findings arrived at by him are based on oral and documentary evidence produced before him. 11. The inquiry officer after making necessary investigation into the charges has to ensure that the conclusions/findings arrived at by him are based on oral and documentary evidence produced before him. 11. The record in the present case reveals that the inquiry officer, initiated and concluded ex-parte inquiry against the delinquent employee, the respondent No.2 on 21.10.2014 in one sitting holding him guilty of the charges without recording findings on each charge after due evaluation of the documents annexed to the memorandum of charge sheet. Neither a single document was proved nor any witness was examined by the inquiry officer to hold the charges as proved against the respondent-applicant in the ex-parte inquiry. The inquiry report, along with pertinent documents of the proceedings was forwarded to the respondent-applicant vide letter dated 9.03.2015 but remained unserved. The disciplinary authority thereafter issued memorandum dated 22.09.2015 proposing to impose penalty of removal from service upon the respondent/applicant. Admittedly, this memorandum was served upon the father of the applicant in his absence. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 ” held as under;- "It is true that the jurisdiction of the Court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial, i.e., beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record.” 13. Learned Tribunal, in its order 08.08.2019 rightly observed that the petitioners-respondents had failed to meet the test regarding compliance with benchmarks of fair procedure required to be observed by them under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. Thus, the inquiry proceedings against respondent-applicant were conducted in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and are vitiated. 14. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 deals with the delay. Thus, the inquiry proceedings against respondent-applicant were conducted in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and are vitiated. 14. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 deals with the delay. Section 21 (3) provides for condonation of delay, where the applicant satisfies, the tribunal stating inter alia that copy of document pertaining to inquiry proceedings were obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005 delay thus satisfactorly explained for not making the application within the period of limitation i.e. one year from the date on which final order has been made. In the present case, while allowing MA No.290/258/2018, the learned Tribunal had considered the sufficiency of cause shown by the applicant which prevented him from filing the application in time. We do not find any force in the argument that the OA was barred by limitation and therefore, ought to have been dismissed without considering the merits of the case. 15. So far as the objection taken by the counsel for the employer-petitioner regarding the availability of departmental appeal under CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 is concerned, suffice it to observe that the availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to entertain an Original Application in cases where there is wholesome violation of principles of natural justice or where an employee seeks enforcement of any of his fundamental rights. It is settled law that injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, has to be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution of India. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 08.08.2019 passed in Original Application No.290/00382/2018 with MA No.290/258/2018 by the learned Tribunal is upheld. However the petitioners-respondents shall be free to proceed against the respondent-applicant pursuant to memorandum of charge sheet dated 16.05.2014 by adhering to the procedure laid down in CCS (CC&A) Rules of 1965 and the principles of natural justice. 17. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.