Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2893 (ALL)

Vishal Sharma v. State Of U. P.

2023-12-22

J.J.MUNIR

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner was a Junior Engineer in the service of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited. He was earlier posted under the Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. at the Electricity Distribution Division-VIII, NOIDA and then transferred to the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, where he joined on 16.03.2021. 2. After a preliminary inquiry, the petitioner was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 24.09.2021. Eight charges were framed against him. The first charge relates to non-maintenance of a register for temporary connections from 01.07.2019 to 30.06.2021, leading to non-monitoring of temporary connections. It is also part of the charge that upon checking of the records, most temporary connections were found approved without installing meters, the readings not taken and bills not issued. 3. The second charge relates to the temporary connection installed at the premises of a certain Mohd. Sartaj, Khasra No.11, Neer Peer Shahberi, Greater NOIDA. This connection was sanctioned temporarily on 09.08.2019 for 2 kilowatts. The period sanctioned was three months. The premises were inspected in the month of August, 2021, where the connection was found disconnected. The office did not have any record of a permanent disconnection or that of the consumer being billed or dues of the Corporation realized. The charge says that it was the duty of the petitioner to get the meter reading of the temporary connection recorded regularly and bills issued to the consumer. It was also his duty to realize dues from the consumer. 4. The third charge is about the premises of another consumer Banshi Lal Rawat. He was sanctioned temporary connection for three months with a sanctioned load of 2 kilowatts. Upon the inspection of his premises, which was a five storey incomplete structure, it was found that the meter was installed on a 8.5 meters high pole, where it was difficult to take down the readings without the help of a ladder. The meter when inspected, was found non-functional. Prior to inspection, the consumer had given a guess-worked reading, which rendered him liable to pay Rs.9262/-only that he paid. The charge goes that the petitioner deliberately got the meter installed at such a high point in connivance with the consumer, so that bills could be raised on concocted readings. 5. The fourth charge relates to a certain consumer, M/s. Noble Valley. This consumer was sanctioned a 2 kilowatts connection on 03.05.2018. The charge goes that the petitioner deliberately got the meter installed at such a high point in connivance with the consumer, so that bills could be raised on concocted readings. 5. The fourth charge relates to a certain consumer, M/s. Noble Valley. This consumer was sanctioned a 2 kilowatts connection on 03.05.2018. Upon inspection of his premises on 24.07.2021, the Executive Engineer found a total of 95 residential premises, where 20 premises were drawing electricity without a valid electricity connection, committing theft. A First Information Report was lodged by the Executive Engineer. The Chief Engineer sanctioned a multi-point connection for the said consumer, but prior to the sanction of the multi-point connection, M/s. Noble Valley was drawing electricity on a temporary connection, regarding which there is no record of billing or arrears. The petitioner has been charged with laxity in not reading the meter of the temporary connection; not taking action against electricity theft; not issuing bills and realizing these for the aforesaid connection or ensuring that it was converted to a permanent connection, causing loss to the Corporation. 6. Charge No.5 relates to 59 temporary connections, out of which only 10 temporary connections were extended, whereas for the balance 49, no menoranda extending the connection were issued, no bills raised, or the Corporation's dues realized. The petitioner was, therefore, charged with laxity and not ensuring disconnection after expiry of the temporary connection’s validity, leading to loss of revenue. 7. Charge No.6 is about the petitioner sanctioning for construction work a less than 10 kilowatts connection temporarily, regarding which there is no record of meter reading or demand available with the Corporation's office. The petitioner was charged with laxity in supervision of temporary connections, ensuring meter reading or realization of bills for these temporary connections deliberately. 8. Charge No.7 is about a consumer by the name Ajay Kumar, who had outstanding on his connection for more than three months, but there is no record available with the Corporation about the steps taken to disconnect his premises. It is charged that according to Rules of the Corporation, for the outstandings the consumer's premises ought to have been disconnected. The petitioner has been charged for not disconnecting the premises on account of the outstandings, not realizing the Corporation's dues leading to financial loss and neglect in the performance of his duties. 9. It is charged that according to Rules of the Corporation, for the outstandings the consumer's premises ought to have been disconnected. The petitioner has been charged for not disconnecting the premises on account of the outstandings, not realizing the Corporation's dues leading to financial loss and neglect in the performance of his duties. 9. Charge No.8 relates to non-ensuring of meter reading for temporary connections and raising MRI Bills. It is charged that the petitioner did not take meter readings or checked these temporary connections. The petitioner was charged with negligence in the matter of ensuring reading of temporary connections, raising MRI Bills and causing financial loss to the Corporation by his negligence in non-performance of duties. 10. Six documents were cited in evidence, mentioned in the charge-sheet, one of which is a copy of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956. The others relate to photo copies of some temporary connection register, copy of a preliminary inquiry report, letter by an Executive Engineer dated 30.08.2019, about non-taking down of readings of meters for the temporary connections and a copy of the provisional bill relating to Ajay Kumar for the month of May, 2021. The petitioner, in response to the said charge-sheet, submitted his reply dated 04.04.2021, denying the charges with full particulars. An inquiry report was submitted by an inquiry committee, comprising two members, dated 28.01.2022, who found all the charges proved. The petitioner was provided a copy of the inquiry report along with a letter dated 11.02.2022 to show cause in the matter. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 28.02.2022, refuting the findings of the Inquiry Committee. 11. The Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Limited by his order dated 11.07.2022 proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service and directed recovery of a sum of Rs.23,17,508/-from him. The petitioner appealed the said decision to the Board of Directors of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited vide his appeal dated 06.10.2022. The Board by their order dated 26th July, 2023 proceeded to reject the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the Disciplinary Authority. 12. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 13. Heard Mr. R. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 14. 12. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 13. Heard Mr. R. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 14. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry against him is procedurally flawed in a manner that goes to the root of the matter. It is asserted that the respondents have not produced any witness on behalf of the establishment to prove the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet, which is an imperative in any case, where imposition of a major penalty is involved. According to the petitioner, this is also a violation of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020 (for short, 'the Regulations'). It is argued that the Inquiry Committee did not provide opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or cross-examining witnesses, inasmuch as no witness was examined. They did the inquiry merely as a matter of formality, purporting to hear the petitioner through video conferencing on 14.12.2021, when a date for the purpose was fixed. It is averred that on the said date no video conferencing could be held as the petitioner could not be connected with the Inquiry Committee. These averments find place in Paragraph Nos.11, 13, 22 and 25 of the writ petition. 15. In Paragraph No. 5(i) of the counter affidavit, it is averred that the petitioner has not disputed the genuineness of any document provided to him during the course of inquiry, nor had he shown any interest in asking the Department to produce any witness for examination/ cross-examination. It is averred that once the employee has duly participated in the inquiry and admitted the evidence on record, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to him. In Paragraph No.5(v), it is averred: “(v). Further from perusal of the record it is evident that no witness was proposed either in the chargesheet or any witness was named by the petitioner to examine during the departmental enquiry, therefore, no witness was examined by the Corporation to prove the charges during the course of departmental enquiry in the present case. Further from perusal of the record it is evident that no witness was proposed either in the chargesheet or any witness was named by the petitioner to examine during the departmental enquiry, therefore, no witness was examined by the Corporation to prove the charges during the course of departmental enquiry in the present case. Further to remove all these anomalies an Office Memorandum dated 14.8.2023 has been issued wherein it has been directed to all the authorities of the Corporation' and the discoms enquiry that they should strictly adhere to the provisions of Rule 7 of the Regulations 2020 and during the departmental enquiry they must first examine the officers on behalf of the Corporation to prove the charges and only thereafter they should provide opportunity to the employees to either cross examine them or to produce any witness on behalf of his defense.” 16. What is, therefore, evident from the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the respondents have not examined any witness on behalf of the establishment to prove the charges. A perusal of the inquiry report also shows that the charges have been held proved, merely by perusing the charge-sheet, the petitioner's reply and the documents on record, hearing the petitioner through video conferencing on 14.12.2021. The petitioner says that he was not heard at all, because the video conferencing connection never got through. There is no specific denial of the fact asserted in Paragraph No.13 of the writ petition that though a personal hearing through video conferencing was arranged, but the video conference was not connected/ provided. The said fact is, therefore, admitted by non-traverse. In this connection, Paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit and its sub-paragraphs are relevant. 17. The most important feature of the matter is that the Inquiry Committee in dealing with charges, that were apparently so serious, that these could lead to the imposition of a major penalty, and did lead to it, never took care to ask the establishment to prove the charges. In a domestic inquiry, the Inquiry Committee/ Tribunal cannot sit with a mind that identifies themselves with the establishment. They have to sit as impartial arbiters, where the establishment have to prove the charges by producing both documentary and oral evidence through a Presenting Officer. In a domestic inquiry, the Inquiry Committee/ Tribunal cannot sit with a mind that identifies themselves with the establishment. They have to sit as impartial arbiters, where the establishment have to prove the charges by producing both documentary and oral evidence through a Presenting Officer. It is after the establishment have produced documents in evidence through a Presenting Officer, that are duly proved by the oral testimony of witnesses that the delinquent employee can be called upon to cross-examine the establishment's witnesses and then produce his evidence in defence. 18. Here, the proceedings have gone in a manner, where it is apparent that the Inquiry Committee were not cognizant of the serious business that they were about. They have written their report after perusing the charge-sheet, together with the documents annexed and the petitioner's reply, treating the charges and the documents in support as proof of themselves. The petitioner as the delinquent before the Inquiry Committee denied the charges. There is nothing on record to show that he admitted the documents annexed to the charges, so as to dispense with proof thereof or the establishment's burden to prove these documents discharged, after formally introducing them to record before the Inquiry Committee through a Presenting Officer and proving them by relevant witnesses. The members of the Inquiry Committee cannot arrogate to themselves personal knowledge of the contents of the documents. The documents have to be laid before them in evidence, and wherever necessary, proved by witness(s). Nothing of the kind has been done in this case. The law in this regard has been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , where it has been held: “27. 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. 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. 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.” 19. Guidance in this regard is to be found in the holding of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 , where it has been observed: “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled 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.” 20. A Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB), dealing with the same issue, held: “14. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.” 20. A Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB), dealing with the same issue, held: “14. Now coming to the question, what is the effect of non-holding of domestic/oral inquiry, in a case where the inquiry officer is appointed, oral inquiry is mandatory. The charges are not deemed to be proved suo motu merely on account of levelling them by means of the charge-sheet unless the same are proved by the department before the inquiry officer and only thereafter it is the turn of delinquent employee to place his defence. Holding oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty, as held by Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 .'' 15. In another case in Subhash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2012(4) ADJ 4 (NOC), the Division Bench of this Court after survey of law on this issue observed as under: ''It is well-settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner that thing has to be done in that very manner. We are of the considered opinion that any punishment awarded on the basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance with the enquiry rules meant for that very purposes is unsustainable in the eye of law. We are further of the view that the procedure prescribed under the inquiry rules for imposing major penalty is mandatory in nature and unless those procedures are followed, any out come inferred thereon will be of no avail unless the charges are so glaring and unrefutable which does not require any proof. The view taken by us find support from the judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 .'' 16. The view taken by us find support from the judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 .'' 16. A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ESC 1667, held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which can vitiate the order of disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment has observed as under: ''10....... Non holding of oral inquiry in such a case, is a serious matter and goes to the root of the case. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 , considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subash Chandra Sharma v. U.P.Cooperative Spinning Mills and others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 and Laturi Singh v. U.P.Public Service Tribunal and others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 6.5.2005.'' 17. Even if the employee refuses to participate in the enquiry the employer cannot straightaway dismiss him, but he must hold and ex parte enquiry where evidence must be led vide Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348 , Uma Shankar v. Registrar, 1992 (65) FLR 674 (All). 18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Narain Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 2 ILR 570, had also occasion to deal with the same issue. It held: ''At this stage, we are to observe that in the disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent, the department is just like a plaintiff and initial burden lies on the department to prove the charges which can certainly be proved only by collecting some oral evidence or documentary evidence, in presence and notice charged employee. It held: ''At this stage, we are to observe that in the disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent, the department is just like a plaintiff and initial burden lies on the department to prove the charges which can certainly be proved only by collecting some oral evidence or documentary evidence, in presence and notice charged employee. Even if the department is to rely its own record/document which are already available, then also the enquiry officer by looking into them and by assigning his own reason after analysis, will have to record a finding that hose documents are sufficient enough to prove the charges. In no case, approach of the Enquiry Officer that as no reply has been submitted, the charge will have to be automatically proved can be approved. This will be erroneous. It has been repeatedly said that disciplinary authority has a right to proceed against delinquent employee in ex parte manner but some evidence will have to be collected and justification to sustain the charges will have to be stated in detail. The approach of the enquiry officer of automatic prove of charges on account of non filing of reply is clearly misconceived and erroneous. This is against the principle of natural justice, fair play, fair hearing and, thus, enquiry officer has to be cautioned in this respect.'' 19. The principal of law which emanates from the above judgments are that initial burden is on the department to prove the charges. In case of procedure adopted for inflicting major penalty, the department must prove the charges by oral evidence also. 20. From perusal of enquiry report it is demonstrably proved that no oral evidence has been led by the department. When a major punishment is proposed to be passed the department has to prove the charges against the delinquent/employee by examining the witnesses and by documentary evidence. In the present case no witness was examined by the department neither any officer has been examined to prove the documents on the basis of which charges are levelled on the claimant in the proceedings. 21. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. 21. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 22. Even if, an employee prefers not to participate in enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary.” 21. The same principle has been reiterated by a Division Bench of our Court in Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB), where it is observed: “15. The law in this regard is very well-settled and does not need a reiteration, however, we may refer to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , wherein it has clearly been held that Enquiry Officer acts as a quasi judicial authority and his position is that of an independent adjudicator and further that he cannot act as a representative of the department or disciplinary authority and further that he cannot act as a prosecutor neither he should act as a judge; his function is to examine the evidence presented by the department and even in the absence of the delinquent officer, has to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to bring home the charges. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in the said judgment of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) that it is only in case when the Government servant, despite notice, fails to appear during the course of enquiry that Enquiry Officer can proceed ex parte and even in such circumstances it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to record the statement of witness. 17. In the instant case, no oral enquiry was held, neither the petitioner was given any notice to participate in any oral enquiry by fixing date, time and place for oral enquiry. 17. In the instant case, no oral enquiry was held, neither the petitioner was given any notice to participate in any oral enquiry by fixing date, time and place for oral enquiry. It is only that the Enquiry Officer after noticing that despite sufficient time having been given to the petitioner, she did not furnish her reply to the charge-sheet, he proceeded to submit ex parte report without conducting any oral enquiry by fixing date, time and place for such an oral enquiry. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer, in this case, has violated the aforesaid principles, which clearly vitiates the enquiry proceedings and any punishment order based on such a vitiated enquiry, is clearly not sustainable.” 22. In State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB)(LB), again a Bench decision of this Court, it was held: “14. Recently the entire law on the subject has been reviewed and reiterated in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510 and Court has culled out certain principles as under: ''(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (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.'' 15. (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.'' 15. The principal of law emanates from the above judgments is that initial burden is on the department to prove the charges. In case where inquiry is initiated with a view to inflict major penalty, department must prove charges by adducing evidence by holding oral inquiry. 17. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Even if, an employee prefers not to participate in enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary.” 23. The law, therefore, is well settled for a salutary principle that the Inquiry Committee cannot go about their exercise like an administrative fact finding committee gleaning through idle papers. They have to have formal proceedings, where the establishment have the first burden to discharge by proving the charges through evidence, both oral and documentary. This Court, as already remarked, finds from a perusal of the inquiry report that the Inquiry Committee have hardly functioned as an impartial arbiter. They have proceeded on the assumption that the charges in the charge-sheet read with the documents, are proof of themselves and it is for the petitioner to dispel the charge, which he has failed to do. These kind of findings of the Inquiry Committee can never be held to be valid, on the foot of which orders of such serious consequence as dismissal from service can lawfully be made. This Court may add that the more serious the charge, the more formal, elaborate and strict the procedure has to be to prove it. These kind of findings of the Inquiry Committee can never be held to be valid, on the foot of which orders of such serious consequence as dismissal from service can lawfully be made. This Court may add that the more serious the charge, the more formal, elaborate and strict the procedure has to be to prove it. After all, this Court does not reappraise evidence in a secondary review, but is obliged to see that there is procedural fairness in the conduct of the inquiry. A fundamentally flawed procedure adopted by the Inquiry Committee has to be undone and the consequences of it abated. 24. In the circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow and the appellate order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the Board of Directors, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. After reinstatement, it will be open to the respondents to proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage of issue of the charge-sheet, bearing in mind the guidance in this judgment. It will also be open to the respondents looking to the nature of the charges, upon the petitioner's reinstatement, either to suspend him pending inquiry or assign him duties. The inquiry, if initiated, will be expedited. In the event, the petitioner is placed under suspension, he will be paid his subsistence allowance regularly, without asking him to furnish a non-alternative engagement certificate. In case he is not suspended and still proceeded with, the petitioner would be paid his current salary regularly from the date of this judgment. So far as the question of arrears of pay etc. is concerned, that will abide by the final result of the disciplinary proceedings, if resumed against the petitioner as per liberty given. If, however, no disciplinary proceedings are taken, the petitioner shall be entitled to 25% of his emoluments with all other consequential benefits. 25. There shall be no order as to costs.