JUDGMENT : 1. In the year 2014, Dinesh Kumar Katiyar, the Respondent, was working as Soil Conservation Officer in Samadesh Bandhu, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. JUDGMENT : 1. In the year 2014, Dinesh Kumar Katiyar, the Respondent, was working as Soil Conservation Officer in Samadesh Bandhu, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. The State Government issued a charge-sheet dated 21.04.2014 charging him as follows: ^^vkids fo:) fuEukafdr vkjksi yxk;s tkrs gSa %& vkjksi la0&1 Hkwfe laj{k.k bdkbZ] Mh0ih0,0ih0&mjbZ esa izHkkjh Hkwfe laj{k.k vf/kdkjh ds :i esa fnukad 27-06-2008 ls 22-04-2010 rd dh rSukrh vof/k esa vki }kjk Mh0ih0,0ih0 dh fofHkUu ifj;kstuk ds MCyw0Mh0,Q0 [kkrksa ls :0 2]25]739-00 dk vukf/kd`r :i ls vkgj.k dj jktdh;/ku dk Nykgj.k dj nq:i;ksx fd;k x;k gS tc fd gfj;kyh xkbM ykbUl ds iSjk&36 ds vuqlkj bl/kujkf'k dks lkeqnkf;d dk;ksZa ij O;; fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA vr% vki gfj;kyh xkbMykbUl ds iSjk&29 ,oa 36 ds vUrxZr iznRr fn'kk funsZ'kksa o Hkkjr ljdkj ,oa 'kklu ds funsZ'kksa ds mYya?ku djrs gq, {ks=h; deZpkfj;ksa ds lkFk feydj v/;{k ,oa lfpo ds ek/;e ls MCyw0Mh0,Q0 ds [kkrksa ls :0 2]25]739-00 dk vukf/kd`r :i ls vkgfjr jktdh;/ku dk Nykgj.k djus] izHkkjh Hkwfe laj{k.k vf/kdkjh in ds drZO;ksa ,oa nkf;Roksa ds vuq:i dk;Z u djus rFkk m0iz0 ljdkjh deZpkjh vkpj.k fu;ekoyh&1956 ds fu;e&3 ds foijhr vkpj.k djus ds nks"kh gSA mDr vkjksi dh iqf"V gsrq fuEu lk{; iBuh; gksaxs& 1- la;qDr funs'kd d`f"k] jkexaxk dek.M ifj;kstuk dkuiqj dk i= la[;k& 'k";@tkWp@Mh0,0ih0 mjbZ@2012&13 fnukad 31-07-2012 }kjk miyC/k djk;h xbZ tkWp vk[;k ,oa Hkwfe laj{k.k bdkbZ mjbZ ds dk;kZy; ds lajf{kr vfHkys[kA 2- m0iz0 ljdkjh deZpkjh vkpj.k fu;ekoyh] 1956 ds fu;e&3 dh izfrA vkjksi la[;k&2 Hkwfe laj{k.k bdkbZ] Mh0ih0ih0&mjbZ esa izHkkjh Hkwfe laj{k.k vf/kdkjh ds :i esa vkidh rSukrh vof/k esa Mh0ih0,0ih0 dh ifj;kstukvks d MCyw0Mh0,Q0 [kkrksa ls djk;s x;s :0 2]25]739-00 ds mijksDr vkgj.k ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ Hkh vfHkys[k rFkk LVhesV ¼l{ke vf/kdkjh ls vuqeksfnr i=koyh½ eki iqfLrdk lEcfU/kr okmpj ,oa nSfud Jfed fpV~Bk vkfn la;qDr funs'kd d`f"k }kjk dh xbZ tkap ds le; bdkbZ dk;kZy; esa miyC/k ugha ik;s x;sA vr% vki fcuk vuqeksfnr bLVhesV ekiu] ckmpj ,oa Jfed fpV~Bksa ds QthZ ढ+x ls 'kkldh;/kujkf'k dk vkgj.k djkdj Nykgj.k djus izHkkjh Hkwfe laj{k.k vf/kdkjh in ds drZO;ksa ,oa nkf;Roksa ds vuq:i dk;Z u djus rFkk m0iz0 ljdkjh deZpkjh vkpj.k fu;ekoyh&1956 ds fu;e&3 ds foijhr vkpj.k djus ds nks"kh gSaA mDr vkjksi dh iqf"V gsrq fuEu lk{; iBuh; gksaxs& 1- la;qDr funs'kd d`f"k] jkexaxk dek.M ifj;kstuk dkuiqj dk i= la[;k& 'k";@tkap@Mh0,0ih0 mjbZ@2012&13 fnukad 31-07-2012 }kjk miyC/k djk;h xbZ tkap vk[;k ,oa Hkwfe laj{k.k bdkbZ mjbZ ds dk;kZy; ds lajf{kr vfHkys[kA 2- m0iz0 ljdkjh deZpkjh vkpj.k fu;ekoyh] 1956 ds fu;e&3 dh izfrA^^ (emphasis supplied) 2. On 13.07.2015, the State Government issued a corrigendum to the charge-sheet dated 21.04.2014, amending the figure Rs. 2,25,739/-, wherever it appeared in the charge-sheet by the figure Rs. 3,96,500/-. On 10.09.2015, a supplementary charge-sheet was issued to the Respondent with an additional charge of withdrawal of Rs. 76,500/-. On 09.08.2016, the Respondent submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him. On 28.12.2016, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 16.01.2017 was issued to the Respondent. On 07.02.2017, the Respondent submitted his reply to the said show cause notice. The State Government passed the punishment order dated 11.08.2017, whereby the Respondent was ordered to be reverted to the initial pay scale and a sum of Rs. 4,72,000/-was ordered to be recovered from him. The order dated 11.08.2017 was served upon the Respondent on 31.08.2017. In compliance of the order dated 11.08.2017, the Administrator, Greater Sharda Sahayak Command, passed an order dated 07.11.2017 fixing the salary of the Respondent at Rs. 35,400/-as on 11.08.2017, in the basic pay scale of Junior Engineer. 3. The Respondent assailed the punishment order dated 11.08.2017, as well as the consequential order dated 07.11.2017, before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 2079 of 2017, Dinesh Kumar Katiyar v. State of U.P. and another. By its judgment and order dated 04.10.2021, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition. The orders dated 11.08.2017 and 07.11.2017 have been quashed with all consequential benefits. The amount, if any, recovered from the Respondent has been ordered to be refunded. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 04.10.2021 of the Tribunal, the Petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 4. Shri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the Respondent, at any stage of the proceedings, did not ask for any oral inquiry and in the absence of the Respondent showing any prejudice having been caused to him, the Tribunal has erred in setting aside the punishment order on the ground that no oral inquiry was held. He further submitted that, once the order of punishment was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the inquiry was not properly conducted, the Tribunal was obliged to remit the case to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the inquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same. 5. Shri Ajey Shanker Tewari, Advocate appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned judgment. 6. The relevant facts for the adjudication of this case are as follows: the Respondent, was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 08.10.1980. He was promoted to the post of Soil Conservation Officer on 07.02.2013 on probation for a period of two years. On 31.07.2012, the Joint Director (Agriculture), Ramganga Command Project, Kanpur submitted a preliminary inquiry report holding the personnel named therein responsible for wastage of money. On the basis of the report dated 31.07.2012 mentioned above, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against four persons, namely, the Respondent, Shri T.K. Sharma, Deputy Director, Shri Mukhtar Khan, Assistant Soil Conservation Officer and Shri Javir Ali, Junior Engineer. The Respondent was served with a charge-sheet dated 21.04.2014, containing two charges pertaining to the period he was posted as Incharge Soil Conservation Officer in Land Development and Water Resources Department at Orai w.e.f. 27.06.2008 to 22.04.2010. The Respondent denied the charges levelled against him. The Inquiry Officer without holding any oral inquiry submitted his inquiry report which led to the passing of the orders dated 11.08.2017 and 07.11.2017. 7. Admittedly, the inquiry against the Respondent has been held under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for brevity “the Rules”). The said Rules have been framed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The Rules prescribe the detailed procedure to be followed in the matters of enforcing discipline and imposing penalty/ punishment against Government servants and in appeals in case of proven misconduct. The procedure and the manner in which an inquiry has to be conducted before imposing any major penalty is laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules. Sub-rule (v), (vi), (vii) & (x) of Rule 7 being relevant are being extracted below for ready reference: 7. Procedure for imposing major penalties. The procedure and the manner in which an inquiry has to be conducted before imposing any major penalty is laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules. Sub-rule (v), (vi), (vii) & (x) of Rule 7 being relevant are being extracted below for ready reference: 7. Procedure for imposing major penalties. -Before imposing any major penalty on a Government servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner: (i) to (iv) (omitted as unnecessary) (v) The charge-sheet, along with the copy of the documentary evidences mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged Government servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records. In case the charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation: Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charge Government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer. (vi) Where the charged Government servant appears and admits charges, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his report to the disciplinary authority on the basis of such admission. (vii) Where the charged Government servant denies the charge the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charge Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidences, the Inquiry officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence: Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. (viii) & (ix) (omitted as unnecessary) (x) Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding in spite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the inquiry officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the inquiry officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant. (xi) to (xii) (omitted as unnecessary)” (emphasis supplied) 8. In such a case the inquiry officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant. (xi) to (xii) (omitted as unnecessary)” (emphasis supplied) 8. Rule 8 of the Rules provides that after the inquiry is completed, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his inquiry report to the disciplinary authority along with all the records of the inquiry. Rule 9 of the Rules prescribes the procedure to be adopted by the disciplinary authority after receiving the inquiry report. 9. As per sub-rule (vi) of Rule 7 of the Rules, it is only where the delinquent Government servant appears and admits the charges that the Inquiry Officer is at liberty to submit his report to the disciplinary authority on the basis of such admission. However, where the delinquent Government servant denies the charges levelled against him, sub-rule (vii) of Rule 7 enjoins upon the Inquiry Officer to hold an oral inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the said Rule. It is only after the inquiry is completed, strictly as per the procedure laid down for the purpose, that the Inquiry Officer can submit his inquiry report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, having regard to the findings in the inquiry report, and after giving an opportunity to show cause, as specified, may by a speaking order impose any penalty whether minor or major specified in Rule 3 of the Rules. 10. By a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has laid down the principles regarding the manner in which disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted and the procedure to be followed therein. It is not necessary to refer to all these decisions. Suffice it to refer to a few decisions on this topic. 11. In State of Uttranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 , after referring to some leading decisions on the issue, the Apex Court consolidated the principles to be followed in disciplinary proceedings. The relevant portion of Paragraph 15 of the said report is being extracted below: "15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge: (i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. The relevant portion of Paragraph 15 of the said report is being extracted below: "15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge: (i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) omitted (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any. (emphasis supplied) 12. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570 the Apex Court reiterated that charges levelled against the charged Government servant must be proved by leading cogent evidence. Paragraph 14 of the said report is reproduced below: “Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.” and then in paragraph 23 of the said decision, the Apex Court held as follows: “......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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 13. In State of U.P. and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , where the delinquent employee had not even submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, while considering the impact of Rule 7 of the Rules, the Apex Court observed as under: - “26. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. 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." (emphasis supplied) 14. It is a well-established principle of law that if manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute then the act must be done in that manner or not at all. It is a well-established principle of law that if manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute then the act must be done in that manner or not at all. (see Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 422 and Brajendra Singh Yambem v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 20 ). 15. In the case in hand, the Respondent 1 had submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him. Admittedly, the Inquiry Officer did not hold any oral inquiry and has given his report only on the basis of the reply submitted by the Respondent. Sub-rule (vii) of Rule 7 of the Rules mandates that in all cases where the charged Government servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in the presence of the charged Government servant, who shall then be given an opportunity to cross-examine such witness. It is no more res integra that the prosecution has to prove the charges by producing documents through witnesses and placing such witnesses to be cross examined by the charged Government servant. Even in the absence of the charged Government servant, the Inquiry Officer is obliged to examine the evidence presented by the Department 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. A perusal of the charge-sheet would show that the charges are based on the preliminary inquiry report dated 31.07.2012 of the Joint Director. Since no oral evidence has been examined, the preliminary inquiry report dated 31.07.2012 has not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the Respondent. Prejudice is evident in cases where the Department has not even proved the documents and evidence which has been presented on its own behalf, and the governing rules have been blatantly violated. In the absence of any oral inquiry, any amount of reasoning given by the Inquiry Officer regarding each and every one of the instance in the inquiry report is not going to validate the proceeding. In the absence of any oral inquiry, any amount of reasoning given by the Inquiry Officer regarding each and every one of the instance in the inquiry report is not going to validate the proceeding. Merely because the Respondent in his reply to the charges did not express his desire for any cross-examination or examination of his witnesses as alleged, it would not absolve the Inquiry Officer from holding an oral inquiry against the Respondent. 16. In Union of India v. Prakash Kumar Tandon, (2009) 2 SCC 541 , while dealing with the issue of prejudice in departmental proceedings, the Apex Court observed that an Inquiry Officer is a quasi-judicial authority. Therefore, he must perform his functions fairly and reasonably which is even otherwise the requirement of the principles of natural justice and held as under: "16. In M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India this Court has held: (SCC p. 95, para 25) “25. … Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, 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. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.” 17. If the disciplinary proceedings have not been fairly conducted, an inference can be drawn that the delinquent officer was prejudiced thereby. 18. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan this Court has held that noncompliance with the principles of natural justice itself causes prejudice. We are not oblivious of the fact that the said principle has since been watered down but in a situation of this nature, we are of the opinion that the concurrent findings of the Tribunal, as also the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering from any legal infirmity warranting interference.” (emphasis supplied) 17. We are not oblivious of the fact that the said principle has since been watered down but in a situation of this nature, we are of the opinion that the concurrent findings of the Tribunal, as also the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering from any legal infirmity warranting interference.” (emphasis supplied) 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is constrained to uphold the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that the inquiry proceedings stood vitiated for not following the mandatory provisions of sub-Rule (vii) of Rule 7 of the Rules. 18. Turning to the second contention of the Petitioner, it is to be seen that in his reply dated 07.02.2017, to the show cause notice dated 16.01.2017, the Respondent had specifically stated that the departmental proceedings were initiated against him, Shri T.K. Sharma, Shri Mukhtar Khan and Shri Javir Ali and on the basis of the preliminary inquiry report dated 31.07.2012 of the Joint Director. However, except for the Respondent, all other officers were exonerated. In the punishment order dated 11.08.2017, the disciplinary authority has stated some facts and extracted the charges levelled against the Respondent, the reply submitted by him to the said charges, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in connection with the respective charges and, thereafter, without even adverting to the submissions made by the Respondent, the disciplinary authority has upheld the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer by a cryptic order. 19. The Tribunal after hearing the counsel for the contesting parties and after perusing the original records has returned a finding that there was discrimination in imposing punishment. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 04.10.2021 are extracted below: “17. Sri Shri T.K.Sharma Deputy Director, Sri Javir ali, and Mukhtar Khan all were charged along with the petitioner on the basis of report of Joint Director dated 31.07.2012. 18. Enquiry officer Sri Satyabhan, Additional Administrator found charge No.1, 2 and 5 of the main chargesheet and charge no.1 of the Supplementary Chargesheet partially proved in his enquiry report dated 28.12.2016, This enquiry was in respect of period 27.6.2008 to 22.04.2010. Disciplinary Authority Chairman/ Administrator, Ram Ganga Command taking note of partially proved charges has observed that measurement was done in pursuance of the letter of Soil Conservation Officer and payment of the work was recommended according to standard. Disciplinary Authority Chairman/ Administrator, Ram Ganga Command taking note of partially proved charges has observed that measurement was done in pursuance of the letter of Soil Conservation Officer and payment of the work was recommended according to standard. Shri Javir Ali, Junior engineer was exonerated as the payment was done and executed work was found to be according to the standard and up to the mark. Reference to Javir Ali Junior Engineer was specially made in his reply to enquiry officer on 09.08.2016. 19. Similarly, Shri Mukhtar Khan, assistant soil Conservation Officer who got repairing work done through Sri Javir Ali, Junior engineer was also chargesheeted similarly but he was let off with a warning on 13.01.2016 by the Disciplinary Authority/ Chairman of the Ram Ganga Command. In this matter also enquiry officer had found charge No.1, 2, 4, 5 and charge no.1 of the supplementary chargesheet partially proved. 20. Shri T.K. Sharma, Deputy Director was also charged similarly and the enquiry officer had found charge no.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 fully established and charge no.1 of the supplementary chargesheet was not found proved. State Government while passing the final order came to the conclusion that charge no.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were found not established and consequently, he was exonerated. It was specially observed that in the absence of date, time and place of the enquiry, defence of non production of measurement book was liable to be accepted. Further, finding of the enquiry officer was upset on the basis of letter of Deputy Director who found that necessary work was done and disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, State Govt. exonerated Sri T.K. Sharma. 21. Petitioner had referred to these three names as these persons were mentioned in the report dated 31.7.2012 submitted by Joint Director. This report was basis of departmental enquiry and the chargesheet was accordingly issued to the petitioner as well as Sri T.K. Sharma, then Deputy Director, Shri Javir Ali, Junior Engineer and Shri Mukhtar Khan, Assistant Soil Conservation Officer. 22. Since report of Joint Director was made the basis of departmental enquiry, so a look of said report is also necessary. 23. 22. Since report of Joint Director was made the basis of departmental enquiry, so a look of said report is also necessary. 23. The relevant part of the report dated 31.7.2012 is reproduced below: - ^^i=koyh] ekiu iqfLrdk] fpV~Bk vkfn miyC/k u gksus ds dkj.k dk;ZLFky dh tkap fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gks ik;k] tcfd fnukad 10 tuojh] 2012 dks ek0 ea=hth dh v/;{krk esa ekfld leh{kk cSBd esa Jh 'kadjnhu mifuns'kd] >kalh izFke us voxr djk;k Fkk fd ekiu dk dk;Z iw.kZ gks x;k gS] lek;kstu dj fy;k tk;sxkA miyC/k rF;ksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd ty laxzg.k lfefr ds/ku dk tks gfj;kyh ckbM ykbu ds iSjk&36 ds vuqlkj lkeqnkf;d dk;kZs ij O;; fd;k tkuk Fkk] og xkbM ykbu ds vuqlkj lkeqnkf;d dk;ksZ ij O;; u gksdj Hkwfe laj{k.k vf/kdkjh Jh Mh0ds0 dfV;kj o mifuns'kd@Hkwfe laj{k.k vf/kdkjh Jh Vh0ds0 'kekZ ds }kjk fogj.k dh fu;r ls mDr/kujkf'k dk vkgj.k fd;k x;k gSA MCyw0Mh0,Q0 ls vkgfjr/kujkf'k dks fudkyus dk vf/kdkjh Hkwfe laj{k.k vf/kdkjh] gfj;kyh xkbM ykbu ds izLrj&29 ,oa 36 dk mYya?ku djrs gq, vkgj.k fd;k x;k gSA mDr ds vykok vkbZ0MCyw0Mh0ih0 ;kstukUrxZr vkbZ0MCyw0Mh0ih0 izFke dqBkSr Cykd dh 10 ifj;kstukvksa esa MCYkw0Mh0,Q0 [krksa esa tek/kujkf'k #0 28]80]459 esa ls #0 22]96]900 07 vxLRk 2010 ls 20 flrEcj 2010 rd Jh Vh0ds0'kekZ mifuns'kd@Hkwfe laj{k.k vf/kdkjh ds dk;Zdky esa vkgfjr dh xbZ gSA bl izdkj dh Vh0ds0'kekZ ds dk;Zdky esa Mh0ih0,0ih0 ,oa vkbZ0MCyw0Mh0ih0 ds fofHkUu ifj;kstukvksa ds MCyw0Mh0,Q0 [kkrksa ls #0 60]71]372 ,oa Jh Mh0ds0 dfV;kj izHkkjh Hkwfe laj{k.k vf/kdkjh ds dk;Zdky esa #0 2]25]739]00 dk v/;{k ,oa lfpo ds ek/;e ls vkgj.k djk;k x;kA mDr lEiw.kZ vkgj.k ls lacaf/kr dksbZ LVhesV] Jfed fpV~Bk] eki iqfLrdk lek;kstu gsrq dk;kZy; esa miyC/k ugha gSA ------------------------------------------ vr% Hkwfe laj{k.k vf/kdkjh ,oa muds {ks=h; deZpkfj;ksa }kjk MCyw0Mh0,Q0 esa miyC/k/kujkf'k dk iw.kZr;k nq#i;ksx fd;k x;k] tks Hkwfe laj{k.k vf/kdkjh@mifuns'kd ds vf/kdkj {ks= esa ugha FkkA bl izdkj/ku ds viO;; ds fy, foHkkxh; lfpo] voj vfHk;URkk] rFkk Hkwfe laj{k.k vf/kdkjh iw.kZr;k ftEesnkj gSA 'kklu dks lgh tkudkjh u nsus ds fy, fy;s Jh 'kadjnhu mi funs'kd] >kalh izFke Hkh vius nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa foQy jgsa gSA^^ On the basis of this report enquiry was instituted against the petitioner, Sri T.K. Sharma, Deputy Director, Shri Mukhtar Khan, Assistant Soil Conservation Officer and Sri Javir Ali, Junior Engineer, Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report finding most of the charges established against all four persons. shri Javir Ali, Junior Engineer was exonerated and Shri Mukhtar Khan, Assistant Soil Conservation Officer was given stern warning by their punishing authority. Tri T.K. Sharma, Deputy Director was exonerated without without any punishment by State Government. Only petitioner has been punished on the basis of said enquiry report.” (emphasis supplied) 20. The fact that disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the Respondent, T.K. Sharma, Mukhtar Khan and Javir Ali on the basis of the preliminary inquiry report dated 31.07.2012 is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the other officers were exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, but on the same charges the Respondent was found guilty. In the punishment order, the State Government has failed to give any reason or justification as to why the basis for exoneration of other three employees is inapplicable to the case of the Respondent. 21. In Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Girish Chandra Sarma, (2007) 7 SCC 206 , while dealing with discrimination in imposition of punishment, the Apex Court has stated as under: - "18. After going through the report and the finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court, we are of opinion that in fact the Division Bench correctly assessed the situation that the respondent alone was made a scapegoat whereas the decision by all three Committees was unanimous decision by all these members participating in the negotiations and the price was finalised accordingly. It is not the respondent alone who can be held responsible when the decision was taken by the Committees. If the decision of the committee stinks, it cannot be said that the respondent alone stinks; it will be arbitrary. If all fish stink, to pick one and say only it stinks is unfair in the matter of unanimous decision of the Committee." (emphasis supplied) 22. In yet another case in State of U.P. and others v. Raj Pal Singh, (2010) 5 SCC 783 , the Apex Court has observed as under: - "5. If all fish stink, to pick one and say only it stinks is unfair in the matter of unanimous decision of the Committee." (emphasis supplied) 22. In yet another case in State of U.P. and others v. Raj Pal Singh, (2010) 5 SCC 783 , the Apex Court has observed as under: - "5. Though, on principle, the ratio in aforesaid cases would ordinarily apply, but in the case in hand, the High Court appears to have considered the nature of charges leveled against the 5 employees who stood charged on account of the incident that happened on the same day and then the High Court came to the conclusion that since the gravity of charges was the same, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to impose different punishments for different delinquents. The reasonings given by the High Court cannot be faulted with since the State is not able to indicate as to any difference in the delinquency of these employees. 6. It is undoubtedly open for the disciplinary authority to deal with the delinquency and once charges are established, to award appropriate punishment. But when the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the impugned order requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied) 23. In Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Jitendra Prasad Singh and others, (2001) 10 SCC 530 , the Apex Court has upheld the finding recorded by the High Court by observing as under: - "Since as many as three workmen on almost identical charges were found guilty of misconduct in connection with the same incident, though in separate proceedings, and one was punished with only one month's suspension, and the other was ultimately reinstated in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, it would be denial of justice to the appellant if he alone is singled out for punishment by way of dismissal from service." 24. For the reasons stated above, it is apparent that the Respondent has been discriminated against in the matter of imposition of penalty. For the reasons stated above, it is apparent that the Respondent has been discriminated against in the matter of imposition of penalty. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondent is entitled to parity qua Shri T.K. Sharma, Shri Mukhtar Khan and Shri Javir Ali. 25. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the inquiry was not properly conducted, it must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the inquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. 26. That course could have been followed even in the present case. The matter could be remanded back to the disciplinary authority or to the inquiry officer for a proper inquiry 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 inquiry or fresh order by the competent authority. (see Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 ) 27. In the present case, disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the Respondent in the year 2014. The punishment order dated 11.08.2017 was served upon him on 31.08.2017, the date on which the Respondent attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. The Respondent may by now must have turned 66 years of age. Any remand either to the inquiry officer for a fresh inquiry or to the disciplinary authority for a fresh order would thus be very harsh and would practically deny to the Respondent any relief whatsoever. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the Respondent has been discriminated against in the matter of imposition of punishment, and that he is entitled to parity qua Shri T.K. Sharma, Shri Mukhtar Khan and Shri Javir Ali, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion in not remanding the matter back. 28. Resultantly, we do not perceive any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.