ORDER : By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the impugned inquiry report dated 26.06.2018 contained in Annexure P-16, impugned punishment order dated 10.04.2019 contained in Annexure P-20 passed by respondent No.4 and office order dated 15.06.2020 contained in Annexure P-25 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set-aside being constitutionally void, arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, void ab-initio, non-est, ultra vires and against the principles of natural justice, by issuing a writ of Certiorari; (ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be passed directing the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 22.01.2016 to 21.04.2016 as on duty and remaining consequential benefits be released to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% per annum; (iii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may also be passed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post of Inspector/Cashier from the date persons junior to him have already been promoted as such and consequential benefits be released to the petitioner. (iv) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may also be passed directing the respondent No.1 to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent Nos. , 6 and 7 who intentionally and willfully failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 14 (35) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and did not attend the inquiry proceedings despite notices/summons issued to them by the respondent No.5.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Booking Clerk on contract basis, under the Kith and Kin Policy of the respondent-Corporation on 25.5.1998. Subsequently vide order dated 25.5.1999, services of petitioner were regularized and since then he is working regularly with the respondent Corporation. Record reveals that on 21.1.2016, one Shri Narain Dass, Driver, in the office of HRTC Mandi leveled allegations against the petitioner that he made indecent remarks against respondent No.4 i.e. Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Divisional Office Mandi. Taking cognizance of aforesaid complaint made by Shri Narain Dass, respondent No.4, placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure P-1) and fixed his headquarters at HRTC Sarkaghat. On 1.2.2016, charge sheet was served upon the petitioner by respondent No.2. Taking cognizance of aforesaid complaint made by Shri Narain Dass, respondent No.4, placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 22.1.2016 (Annexure P-1) and fixed his headquarters at HRTC Sarkaghat. On 1.2.2016, charge sheet was served upon the petitioner by respondent No.2. Petitioner submitted reply to the memo on 8.2.2016 (Annexure P-3) and thereafter on 27.10.2017 (Annexure P-5) submitted written statement of defence to Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Officer was requested to supply defence/additional documents, but such documents were not supplied to the petitioner and as such, he was compelled to approach erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 1501 of 2019. By way of aforesaid Original Application, petitioner also laid challenge to his suspension order dated 22.1.2016. 3. In the aforesaid Original Application, petitioner filed MA No. 682 of 2018 levelling therein allegations against Inquiry Officer that despite there being request of petitioner, defence/ additional documents were not supplied to him. However, aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner came to be dismissed as being premature. Vide aforesaid order, learned Tribunal below also observed that as regards initiation of departmental proceedings in accordance with rule 14(35) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter, ‘Rules’), applicant would be at liberty to press his prayer before Inquiry Officer as per rules/law. 4. Interestingly, in the case at hand, Defence Assistant of the petitioner vide communication dated 14.9.2017, Annexure P-6, though submitted list of five witnesses as detailed on back side of said communication but witness at Sr. Nos. 2 and 5 Neel Mani Sharma and Rajesh Kumar (petitioner) only came forward to make deposition whereas, witnesses at Sr. No.1, 3 and 4 refused to come forward to depose and as such, Defence Assistant representing the petitioner vide communication dated 18.12.2017, requested Inquiry Officer to initiate proceedings under Sub-rule (17) of Rule 14 of the Rules, against those witnesses, who despite summons failed to come present for getting their statements recorded. However, fact remains that neither witnesses at Sr. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 came to depose nor Inquiry Officer recommended action against them in terms of sub-rule (17) of Rule 14 of the Rules. On 26.6.2018 (Annexure P-16), Inquiry Officer concluded the enquiry, wherein allegations against petitioner were found to be proved and Inquiry Officer recommended Disciplinary Authority for action in accordance with law. 5. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 came to depose nor Inquiry Officer recommended action against them in terms of sub-rule (17) of Rule 14 of the Rules. On 26.6.2018 (Annexure P-16), Inquiry Officer concluded the enquiry, wherein allegations against petitioner were found to be proved and Inquiry Officer recommended Disciplinary Authority for action in accordance with law. 5. Divisional Manager, HRTC, who was proposed witness No.1, vide order dated 10.1.2019 (Annexure P-17), after having received Inquiry Report from Inquiry Officer (Annexure P-16), called upon the petitioner to make representation against the penalty proposed to be imposed against him. Petitioner, while responding to aforesaid communication, vide letter dated 13.2.2019 (Annexure P-18) invited attention of the Disciplinary Authority to the fact that he cannot exercise power of Disciplinary Authority because he was cited as one of the witnesses. However, fact remains that the Divisional Manager, ignoring said objection of the petitioner, vide order dated 10.4.2019, (Annexure P-20) imposed penalty of “reduction of his two stages in a time scale of pay for a period of three years w.e.f. 01.05.2019” and it was further ordered that, “he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and after the expiry of his reduction in the time scale of pay, the reduction will not have the effect of his postponing future increments of pay. 6. Being aggrieved by said order passed by Divisional Manager, respondent No.4 (Annexure P-20), petitioner filed an OA No. 2486 of 2019, however, same was dismissed vide order dated 2.7.2019 (Annexure P-23), reserving liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal against order dated 10.4.2019 (Annexure P-20), before the competent authority. Petitioner preferred an appeal before Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (Annexure P-24), reiterating therein that the disciplinary action, if any, could not be taken by Divisional Manager, as he was one of witnesses in the enquiry against petitioner. Apart from above, petitioner raised another ground in the appeal that since Divisional Manager alongwith two other witnesses failed to make himself available for deposition despite receipt of summons, they ought to have been dealt with in accordance with law. Petitioner also claimed that purposely and to cause harm to the petitioner, eye witness Balwant Kumar, Adda Incharge who was present at the time of the alleged incident, was dropped. Petitioner also claimed that purposely and to cause harm to the petitioner, eye witness Balwant Kumar, Adda Incharge who was present at the time of the alleged incident, was dropped. However, the fact remains that the Managing Director ignored all the grounds raised by the petitioner and upheld Annexure P-20, vide order dated 15.6.2020 (Annexure P-25). In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs as reproduced herein above. 7. Precise grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation Mandi, was cited as one of the witnesses, he could not have imposed penalty, while acting as a Disciplinary Authority. Apart from above, it has been further claimed by the petitioner that since the allegation against the petitioner was that he abused Divisional Manager Mandi, in the presence of Balwant, who was never examined as a witness, Divisional Manager had otherwise no authority whatsoever to act as a Disciplinary Authority. 8. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this court to Annexure P-6, dated 14.9.2017, vehemently argued that Defence Assistant of the petitioner, Shri Lal Chand Prasad, specifically requested Inquiry Officer to summon Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation Mandi, because allegation against the petitioner was that he abused Divisional Manager, HRTC, Mandi, but despite notice, aforesaid officer failed to cause his presence, for making deposition and as such, vide communication dated 18.12.2018 Annexure P-7, Defence Assistant again requested Inquiry Officer to initiate proceedings under sub-rule (17) of Rule 14 of the Rules against the Divisional Manager, Mandi but, she instead of initiating action in terms of aforesaid provision of law, continued with the enquiry and finally recorded wrong finding in the Inquiry Report Annexure R-16 that the petitioner was unable to secure presence of witnesses detailed at Sr. Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the list of witnesses, whereas, on the request of petitioner notices were issued to persons cited as witnesses at Sr. Nos. 1,3 and 4 but yet they refused to appear as witnesses. Lastly, Mr. Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the list of witnesses, whereas, on the request of petitioner notices were issued to persons cited as witnesses at Sr. Nos. 1,3 and 4 but yet they refused to appear as witnesses. Lastly, Mr. Dogra argued that since Disciplinary Authority in the case at hand was Regional Manager, HRTC, Divisional Manager HRTC had otherwise no authority to pass order imposing penalty and as such, same being passed without jurisdiction is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the impugned action of the respondents contended that once Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation did not depose as a witness, there was no impediment, if any for him to pass order imposing penalty being Disciplinary Authority. However, learned counsel for the respondent was unable to dispute the fact that in the case at hand, Disciplinary Authority was not the Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation but in the case of the petitioner, Disciplinary Authority was Regional Manager. Ms. Mahajan argued that since Divisional Manager concerned is the appointing authority/Disciplinary Authority of Booking Clerks, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Divisional Manager while passing order imposing penalty. 10. Before ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this court would first deal with scope and competence of this Court to intervene in the disciplinary proceedings. 11. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Allahaband Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 , while elaborating upon the scope of High Court to interfere in departmental enquiry, has held that the writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non-application of mind by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. Hon'ble Apex Court held in the judgment supra as under: “4. The High Court came to the conclusion that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority had applied their mind or recorded reasons in support of their conclusions. Hon'ble Apex Court held in the judgment supra as under: “4. The High Court came to the conclusion that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority had applied their mind or recorded reasons in support of their conclusions. Relying upon the decisions of this court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 570 , Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 10 , Nand Kishore v. State of Bihar (1978) 3 SCC 366 , Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer, Allahabad Bank & Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 480 , State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 and Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 539 , the High Court held that the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were unsustainable in law. The High Court found that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority were perverse and were based on no evidence whatsoever. The High Court observed that the Appellate Authority had not applied its mind independently and simply cut and pasted the findings of the Disciplinary Authority while dismissing the appeal. 5. On behalf of the appellant-bank it was contended before us that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence and holding the respondent not guilty. It was argued that so long as there was some evidence on which the Disciplinary Authority could rest its findings, sufficiency or insufficiency of such evidence could not be gone into by a Writ Court. Alternatively, it was submitted that even if there was any infirmity in the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority, on account of absence or insufficiency of the reasons in support of the findings recorded by them, the proper course for the High Court was to remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority or the Disciplinary Authority as the case may be for doing the needful afresh. The High Court could not, on account of absence of reasons or unsatisfactory appraisal of the evidence by them, quash the order of punishment and direct release of the service benefits due to the respondent. 6. The High Court could not, on account of absence of reasons or unsatisfactory appraisal of the evidence by them, quash the order of punishment and direct release of the service benefits due to the respondent. 6. On behalf of the respondent it was on the other hand contended that the enquiry conducted against the respondent and the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority suffered from fatal defects. Firstly, because the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was unfair and had resulted in gross miscarriage of justice on account of the failure of the Enquiry Officer to provide a reasonable opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence in his defense. In the second place the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and so also the Disciplinary Authority were unsupported by any evidence whatsoever and were perverse to say the least. In the third place, the orders were unsustainable also for the reason that the same did not disclose due and proper application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was, in particular, bad in law as the same did not examine the material on record independently and had simply relied upon the findings of the Disciplinary Authority without adverting to the points which the respondent had raised in support of his challenge. It was lastly submitted that the respondent has since superannuated and was a physical wreck having suffered a heart attack and a debilitating stroke which had confined him to bed. Any remand of the proceedings to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order or the Disciplinary Authority for re-examination and fresh determination of the respondent’s guilt would not only be harsh but would tantamount to denial of justice to him. The High Court was in that view justified in taking a pragmatic view of the matter and in directing continuity of service to the respondent and release of all service and retiral benefits to him upto the date of his superannuation. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions at the bar. It is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a Departmental Authority on the basis of evidence available on record. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions at the bar. It is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a Departmental Authority on the basis of evidence available on record. But it is equally true that in a case where the Disciplinary Authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non-application of mind by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. The High Court has, in the case at hand, found all these infirmities in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The respondent’s case that the enquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence in defense has not been effectively rebutted by the appellant. More importantly the Disciplinary Authority does not appear to have properly appreciated the evidence nor recorded reasons in support of his conclusion. To add insult to injury the Appellate Authority instead of recording its own reasons and independently appreciating the material on record, simply reproduced the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. All told the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have faltered in the discharge of their duties resulting in miscarriage of justice. The High Court was in that view right in interfering with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. 8. There is no quarrel with the proposition that in cases where the High Court finds the enquiry to be deficient either procedurally or otherwise the proper course always is to remand the matter back to the concerned authority to redo the same afresh. That course could have been followed even in the present case. 8. There is no quarrel with the proposition that in cases where the High Court finds the enquiry to be deficient either procedurally or otherwise the proper course always is to remand the matter back to the concerned authority to redo the same afresh. That course could have been followed even in the present case. The matter could be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority or to the Enquiry Officer for a proper enquiry and a fresh report and order. But that course may not have been the only course open in a given situation. There may be situations where because of a long time lag or such other supervening circumstances the writ court considers it unfair, harsh or otherwise unnecessary to direct a fresh enquiry or fresh order by the competent authority. That is precisely what the High Court has done in the case at hand. The High Court has taken note of the fact that the respondent had been placed under suspension in the year 2004 and dismissed in the year 2005. The dismissal order was challenged in the High Court in the year 2006 but the writ petition remained pending in the High Court for nearly seven years till 2013. During the intervening period the respondent superannuated on 30th November, 2011. Not only that he had suffered a heart attack and a stroke that has rendered him physically disabled and confined to bed. The respondent may by now have turned 65 years of age. Any remand either to the Enquiry Officer for a fresh enquiry or to the Disciplinary Authority for a fresh order or even to the Appellate Authority would thus be very harsh and would practically deny to the respondent any relief whatsoever. Superadded to all this is the fact that the High Court has found, that there was no allegation nor any evidence to show the extent of loss, if any, suffered by the bank on account of the alleged misconduct of the respondent. The discretion vested in the High Court in not remanding the matter back was, therefore, properly exercised. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis action impugned in the instant proceedings, this court finds that grouse of the petitioner is that he was not afforded due opportunity to prove his innocence by Inquiry Officer while conducting enquiry. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis action impugned in the instant proceedings, this court finds that grouse of the petitioner is that he was not afforded due opportunity to prove his innocence by Inquiry Officer while conducting enquiry. Record clearly reveals that the complaint against the petitioner was lodged by one Shri Narain Dass, but complaint was with regard to abuses, if any, hurled by the petitioner against Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation and as such, he can be said to be an interested party. In such like situation, Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, otherwise ought to have distanced himself from the Disciplinary proceedings, so that same could be conducted in a transparent manner. But in the case at hand, Divisional Manager, who was cited as a witness by the petitioner, despite having received notice from Inquiry Officer, refused to come present for making deposition, yet, Inquiry Officer in her report has concluded that the petitioner was unable to secure presence of witnesses cited by him at Sr.Nos.1, 3 and 4, which also includes Divisional Manager, Mandi. Documents available on record clearly reveal that the Defence Assistant appointed on behalf of the petitioner repeatedly requested Inquiry Officer to secure presence of all the witnesses cited in the list of witnesses and when they failed to cause their presence despite notice, Defence Assistant vide communication dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure P-7), requested Inquiry Officer to initiate proceedings against the witnesses cited at Sr. Nos. 1,3 and 4 for theirs having not supplied additional documents to petitioner and for theirs not coming forward to make deposition but yet, no proceedings, if any, sub-rule 17 of rule 14 of the Rules ever came to be initiated against such persons, to the contrary, Inquiry Officer recorded wrong finding in the inquiry report. 13. Apart from aforesaid request to initiate proceedings against the persons named at Sr. Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Defence Assistant also requested Inquiry Officer to supply additional documents, before starting evidence of the petitioner but neither such documents were supplied to him nor due procedure as prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules was followed by Inquiry Officer, as a consequence of which great prejudice was caused to the petitioner. 14. Though Ms. Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Defence Assistant also requested Inquiry Officer to supply additional documents, before starting evidence of the petitioner but neither such documents were supplied to him nor due procedure as prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules was followed by Inquiry Officer, as a consequence of which great prejudice was caused to the petitioner. 14. Though Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent, while inviting attention of this court to the reply filed by the respondent Corporation contended that it was not the duty of the Inquiry Officer to ask the Presenting Officer to make available all defence documents, rather, same were to be procured by the delinquent official from the concerned agency himself. However, careful perusal of sub-rule (17) of Rule 14 reveals that when regular hearing commences, the inquiring authority would ask the Presenting Officer to produce the documentary evidence. Such documents as are disputed by the Charged Officer have to be proved by the witnesses before they are taken on record. The undisputed documents would be taken on record and marked as exhibits. 15. However, in the present case, no such procedure ever came to be adopted by Inquiry Officer as such, enquiry stands vitiated on this count. Moreover, this court finds from the record that the sole eye witness Balwant, who had allegedly seen petitioner hurling abuses at Divisional Manager though was cited as a witness by the Presenting Officer, but his statement never came to be recorded. Though notice to the aforesaid person was issued by Inquiry Officer but he refused to come. Since aforesaid person was a material witness, he was required to be examined, but it appears that no effort, if any, came to be made on behalf of the Presenting Officer to ensure his presence before Inquiry Officer. Since statement of this witness could be material for the adjudication of the case at hand, this court has reasons to presume and believe that the aforesaid witness was purposely withheld from enquiry. 16. Leaving everything aside, Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, who in one way or the other had personal intereset in the disciplinary proceedings, had no occasion at all to get himself associated in the disciplinary proceedings, that too as Disciplinary Authority. 16. Leaving everything aside, Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, who in one way or the other had personal intereset in the disciplinary proceedings, had no occasion at all to get himself associated in the disciplinary proceedings, that too as Disciplinary Authority. Though in the reply, respondents have claimed that memorandum of charge was served upon petitioner by the Divisional Manager, but record reveals that memo of charge dated 1.2.2016, Annexure P-2 was issued by Regional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation Mandi. Though respondents claimed that in case of Booking Clerks, Appointing Authority was the Divisional Manager, but if it was so, charge sheet at the first instance ought to have been issued by Divisional Manager, but since in the case at hand, charge sheet was issued by the Regional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation Mandi, there appears to be merit in the claim of the petitioner that in his case appointing authority was the Regional Manager and as such, said authority only was having authority to impose penalty, if any in the Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against him. 17. It has been further claimed by the respondents in their reply that in case of Booking Clerks, charge sheet can be issued by Divisional Manager under Rule 16 which provides for minor penalties, but in the case at hand, penalty proposed to be imposed was major and as such, same could be imposed by Divisional Manager but this court is not convinced with the aforesaid submission. In case the Divisional Manager was appointing authority of Booking Clerks, he was competent to issue charge sheet but in the case at hand, charge sheet was issued by Regional Manager, who thereafter being competent authority ought to have awarded penalty if any. 18. Leaving everything aside, as observed above, even if it is presumed that Divisional Manager HRTC was competent to impose penalty, in the case at hand, he could not be a party to the disciplinary proceedings, for the reason that the allegations of hurling abuses were against said authority /person and as such, said person/authority can be said to have personal interest. In that situation he could appoint some other person and could have brought matter to the notice of Managing Director enabling him to appoint some other person as a Disciplinary Authority. In that situation he could appoint some other person and could have brought matter to the notice of Managing Director enabling him to appoint some other person as a Disciplinary Authority. Since in this case at hand, aforesaid procedure was not followed and Inquiry Officer wrongly concluded in Inquiry Report that the petitioner failed to secure presence of witnesses at Sr. No. 1, 3 and 4, Inquiry Report submitted by Inquiry Officer cannot be said to be free from bias and procedural irregularities. 19. It stands duly established on record that all steps were taken by the delinquent official /petitioner for summoning witnesses cited at Sr. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in the list of witnesses but yet they did not come forward to make their depositions and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner was given adequate of opportunity to prove his innocence. It is amply clear from the discussion made herein above, that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to in the case at hand. Otherwise also penalty imposed by Disciplinary Authority, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be reasonable one because definitely the same does not commensurate with the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, which otherwise never came to be proved in accordance with law. 20. As has been observed herein above, person namely Balwant Singh, who was an eye witness to alleged incident, though was cited as witness by the Presenting Officer but for the reasons best known to them was not made available to depose. Record reveals that Balwant Singh did not refuse to come but said that till the time he is provided expenses for traveling he would not come. However, Presenting Officer never made any effort to provide expenses to this witness to come forward for deposition, meaning thereby Presenting Officer did not want this witness to come and depose. Inaction of Presenting Officer to cause presence of material witness, compels this court to draw conclusion that such person was purposely withheld from the enquiry. Five opportunities were granted to Presenting Officer to secure presence of this witness but no steps were taken by them to secure presence of such a material witness. To the contrary, petitioner though took steps to cause presence of witnesses cited at Sr. Five opportunities were granted to Presenting Officer to secure presence of this witness but no steps were taken by them to secure presence of such a material witness. To the contrary, petitioner though took steps to cause presence of witnesses cited at Sr. No. 1, 3 and 4 and they all were duly served but they chose not to come present but yet in the case of the petitioner, Inquiry Officer drew adverse inference against the petitioner on account of his failure to cause presence of witnesses at Sr. Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 21. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police and others, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 677, held that in case the inquiry proceedings are perverse and foundation is not as per the true facts, said inquiry cannot stand and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. 22. The Apex Court in a case titled as Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570, held that it is a duty of the Inquiry Officer to scan the entire evidence in order to arrive at a finding after judging the case of all the parties, adhering to the principles of natural justice, otherwise, the inquiry is vitiated and the finding recorded is also not in accordance with law. It is apt to reproduce para 23 of the judgment herein: "23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the Criminal Court on the basis of self-same evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof." 23. Specific case of the petitioner is that he was not afforded due opportunity to prove his innocence because no effort was made by Inquiry Officer to ensure presence of witnesses cited in list of witnesses. It also emerges from record that request made by petitioner to make available additional documents, was not acceded to. 24. The Apex Court in the case titled as Union of India and others v. R.P. Singh, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 3475, held that non-supply of copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent at predecisional stage amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It is apt to reproduce paras 25 to 28 of the judgment herein. "24. We will be failing in our duty if we do not refer to another passage which deals with the effect of non-supply of the enquiry report on the punishment. It reads as follows: - "[v] The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the enquiry officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the [pic]concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an "unnatural expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice". 25. After so stating, the larger Bench proceeded to state that the court/tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished. The courts/tribunals would apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment. It is only if the court/tribunal finds that the furnishing of report could have made a difference to the result in the case then it should set aside the order of punishment. Where after following the said procedure the court/tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/ management to proceed with the enquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the enquiry from that stage of furnishing with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement, if ultimately ordered, should invariably left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. 26. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement, if ultimately ordered, should invariably left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. 26. We have referred to the aforesaid decision in extenso as we find that in the said case it has been opined by the Constitution Bench that non-supply of the enquiry report is a breach of the principle of natural justice. Advice from the UPSC, needless to say, when utilized as a material against the delinquent officer, it should be supplied in advance. As it seems to us, Rule 32 provides for supply of copy of advice to the government servant at the time of making an order. The said stage was in prevalence before the decision of the Constitution Bench. After the said decision, in our considered opinion, the authority should have clarified the Rule regarding development in the service jurisprudence. We have been apprised by Mr. Raghavan, learned counsel for the respondent, that after the decision in S.K. Kapoor's case (2011 AIR SCW 1814), the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training vide Office Memorandum dated 06.01.2014 has issued the following directions: "4. Accordingly, it has been decided that in all disciplinary cases where the Commission is to be consulted, the following procedure may be adopted :- (i) On receipt of the Inquiry Report, the DA may examine the same and forward it to the Commission with his observations; (ii) On receipt of the Commission's report, the DA will examine the same and forward the same to the Charged Officer along with the Inquiry Report and his tentative reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Report and/or the advice of the UPSC; (iii) The Charged Officer shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the Inquiry report/advice of UPSC is in his favour or not. (iv) The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation of the Charged Officer and take further action as prescribed in sub-rules 2(A) to (4) of Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 27. (iv) The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation of the Charged Officer and take further action as prescribed in sub-rules 2(A) to (4) of Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 27. After the said Office Memorandum, a further Office Memorandum has been issued on 5.3.2014, which pertains to supply of copy of UPSC advice to the Charged Officer. We think it appropriate to reproduce the same: "The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. of even number dated 6.1.2014 and to say that it has been decided, in partial modification of the above O.M. that a copy of the inquiry report may be given to the Government servant as provided in Rule 15(2) of Central Secretariat Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The inquiry report together with the representation, if any, of the Government servant may be forwarded to the Commission for advice. On receipt of the Commission's advice, a copy of the advice may be provided to the Government servant who may be allowed to submit his representation, if any, on the Commission's advice within fifteen days. The Disciplinary Authority will consider the inquiry report, advice of the Commission and the representation(s) of the Government servant before arriving at a final decision". 28. In our considered opinion, both the Office Memoranda are not only in consonance with the S.K. Kapoor's case (2011 AIR SCW 1814) but also in accordance with the principles of natural justice which has been stated in B. Karunakar's case ( AIR 1994 SC 1074 )." 25. Having scanned entire material as well as law taken note herein above, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer have violated the principles of natural justice. Otherwise also, order dated 10.4.2019 (Annexure P-25) passed by Divisional Manager Himachal Road Transport Corporation Mandi, imposing major penalty is not sustainable in the eye of law, for the reason that Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation being not appointing authority was not otherwise competent to pass the penalty order, coupled with the fact that he was an interested party. 26. 26. Similarly, this court finds that the appellate authority, while considering appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner herein miserably failed to take note of grounds taken in the appeal, as a result of which serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, who otherwise has been awarded penalty disproportionate to alleged misconduct 27. Yet another aspect of the matter is that when allegations are levelled against respondent No.4, the then Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation Mandi, how he could have passed the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner. A person cannot be become a judge of his own cause. Moreover, in such situation, it cannot be ruled out that the enquiry proceedings conducted under said Divisional Manager, would be free from bias and prejudice. 28. So far order dated 15.6.2020 (Annexure P-25) is concerned, same is only a reproduction of the chronology of events and nothing more. In the concluding two paras of said order, merely it is observed that on going through the entire record of the case as well as finding of enquiry report, the undersigned has found that the sufficient opportunity has been given to the applicant during the course of enquiry but the petitioner consecutively failed to attend the hearing and also failed to produce the defence witnesses and in the next para, the appeal has been rejected. There not even an iota to show that the appellate authority has applied its judicious mind to the grounds raised in the appeal and facts attending upon the case. 29. Yet another aspect of the matter is that whether the alleged misconduct imputed against the petitioner would attract major penalty as has been awarded to the petitioner in the instant case. 30. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion and law taken into consideration this court finds merit in the petition and same is allowed. Annexure P-16, dated 26.6.2018 and Annexure P-20 dated 10.4.2019 as also Annexure P-25, dated 15.6.2020 are quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits like counting of period of suspension as period on duty and he shall be entitled for promotion to next higher post, if otherwise eligible. 31. Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications.