ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 29.03.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby the petitioner was punished with “Removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment”. The order of the Disciplinary Authority was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.09.2008. Against these orders, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner who was working as a Probationary Officer with the respondent Bank was transferred from Jaisalmer to Jhunjhunu vide order dated 26.02.2007. In pursuance to the said order, the petitioner refrained from joining to his transferred place and applied for voluntary retirement on 14.03.2007. As the said application was not in the required format, the same was not accepted. Meanwhile, the petitioner was served with the memorandum dated 10.04.2007 on the ground that he was absent from his duties since 02.02.2007. Several notices were served on him for joining his services but the same remained unresponded. On 09.06.2007, the petitioner submitted his application for voluntary retirement in the required format and prayed for acceptance of the same. The said application of the petitioner was not considered because of the fact that the departmental proceedings had already been initiated against him. 3. When the notices served on the petitioner remained unresponded, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him, of which also, the notices were served on him but the petitioner did not choose to appear before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer, in the circumstances, submitted the inquiry report dated 28.06.2007 to the Disciplinary Authority stating thereby that as the petitioner did not appear in the inquiry proceedings, he has closed the same and the Disciplinary Authority may now pass appropriate orders. Proceeding upon the said inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority undertook the proceedings in terms of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. 4. On basis of the inquiry report as submitted, the Disciplinary Authority affirmed the findings of the Inquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 29.03.2008. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 29.03.2008 and the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority. 5. 4. On basis of the inquiry report as submitted, the Disciplinary Authority affirmed the findings of the Inquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 29.03.2008. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 29.03.2008 and the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complete inquiry proceedings as conducted stand vitiated as the principles of natural justice have not been followed by the inquiry officer. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged notices dated 29.05.2007 and 15.06.2007 as mentioned by the inquiry officer in his inquiry report were never served on the petitioner. He submitted that the inquiry report is no report in the eyes of law as the same does not give any finding as required in terms of law. The Inquiry Officer neither recorded statements of any of the witnesses nor any documents were exhibited during the inquiry proceedings. Moreover, the Inquiry Officer did not reach to a finding/conclusion and just forwarded the report to the Disciplinary Authority with the observation that : “It is therefore, decided to conclude the enquiry ex-parte assuming that CSE Mr. Sankhla has nothing to say in this defence and appropriate action/award may kindly be taken by the disciplinary authority as he deem fit.” 6. Leaned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that so far as the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is concerned, the same is a mere reproduction of the statements as made by the inquiry officer. The Disciplinary Authority stated that he has reached to the conclusion on basis of the finding of the inquiry officer which is ex-facie bad as there was no finding given by the inquiry officer which could have been relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel further submitted that all the grounds which were raised by him in the appeal were not considered by the Appellate Authority and therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is also not valid in terms of law. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the fact that the petitioner met with a severe accident on 06.08.2007 and therefore, was unable to present his case was also not considered by any of the authorities, which too is against the principles of natural justice. 7. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the fact that the petitioner met with a severe accident on 06.08.2007 and therefore, was unable to present his case was also not considered by any of the authorities, which too is against the principles of natural justice. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all the notices as stated by the inquiry officer in his inquiry report had been served on the petitioner by the modes as permitted under law. Learned counsel submitted that even prior to initiation of the inquiry proceedings, several notices which are available on record, were served on the petitioner but the petitioner specifically stated that as he has already applied for voluntary retirement, the same may be accepted. So far as his absence from duties is concerned, his absence was willful which is clear from the fact that the petitioner was absent from his duties since 02.02.2007 whereas he was transferred on 26.02.2007. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that he applied for voluntary retirement only because of his transfer order. Learned counsel further submitted that in the inquiry proceedings, an officer to plead on behalf of the Bank before the inquiry officer was appointed who placed all the relevant documents before the inquiry officer which were considered by him and on the basis of the documents as submitted, the inquiry officer reached to the conclusion and therefore, the inquiry report as submitted by the inquiry officer is perfectly in terms of law. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are well reasoned and speaking orders and the same deserve to be upheld. So far as the fact of the petitioner having met with an accident and undergoing treatment is concerned, learned counsel submitted that there was no document available on record or placed on record by the petitioner to suggest the same. Therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence, the same could not have been considered by any of the authorities. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is clear on record that the notices prior to initiation of the inquiry proceedings as well as during the inquiry proceedings were very well served on the petitioner and despite service, he chose not to appear before the Inquiry Officer. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is clear on record that the notices prior to initiation of the inquiry proceedings as well as during the inquiry proceedings were very well served on the petitioner and despite service, he chose not to appear before the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner is not tenable. The notices were very well served on the petitioner and in response to one of the notices, he specifically replied that as he has already applied for voluntary retirement, the same may be considered meaning thereby without acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement he chose to remain absent from duties deeming as if his application had been accepted. 11. During the inquiry proceedings also despite service of notice he chose not to file any response or to lead any evidence and therefore, the inquiry proceedings were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte and ultimately vide inquiry report dated 28.06.2007, the inquiry officer forwarded the report to the Disciplinary Authority. However, parallelly it is also clear on record that the inquiry report dated 28.06.2007 does not speak of any evidence being led by any of the witnesses on behalf of the Bank so as to prove the charges as framed against the petitioner. The report also does not speak of any of the documents being submitted on record. Meaning thereby, no witness was examined nor any document was exhibited during the inquiry proceedings by the inquiry officer. 12. As held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (Civil Appeal No.254 of 2008, decided on February 2, 2010) reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 , even in cases where the delinquent remained absent from the inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer is under an obligation to record the evidence and reach to a specific finding that the charges as framed have been proved against the delinquent on basis of the oral as well as the documentary evidence. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Saroj Kumar Sinha’s case (supra) observed as under : 28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Saroj Kumar Sinha’s case (supra) observed as under : 28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.” 14. Therefore, in view of the ratio as laid down in Saroj Kumar Sinha’s case (supra), it can be concluded that the inquiry report dated 28.06.2007 does not fulfill the parameters required under the law. The same being a report not giving any findings as to the proof of the charges as levelled against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. In State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Rajit Singh (Civil Appeal Nos.2049-2050 of 2022, decided on 22.03.2022), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that once the Court sets aside an order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the Disciplinary Authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated and concluded. 15. In view of the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the inquiry report dated 28.06.2007 and conclusively the order dated 29.03.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order dated 11.09.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the inquiry officer for conducting a denovo inquiry in the present matter after serving a notice on the petitioner and after following the principles of natural justice. Further proceedings would follow in terms of law. The inquiry proceedings by the Inquiry Officer would be completed within a period of three months from the date of its initiation. 16. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. 17. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.