JUDGMENT : RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Brief Facts of the case 2. The petitioner is an accounts cadre employee of the Government of Bihar. He joined as Head Clerk in the Hazipur Jail in the month of July, 2018. While working as head clerk, he was also given charge of ‘Pravesh Sakha Prabhari’ (Entry Section In-charge) in the jail. It is stated that by order of the Superintendent, the petitioner was given duty to paste the notice containing list of inmates required to attend the trial court each day. A copy of the said notice/list was required to be given to ‘Bada Jamadar’ and the ‘Gate Warder’ posted at the Gate of the jail. It is the case of the petitioner that the ‘Bada Jamadar’ and the Gate Warder had duty under the supervision of the Assistant Superintendent or Deputy Superintendent to actually handover the inmates to district police for taking them to the trial court. 3. By placing letter dated 23.05.2008 (Annexure ‘1’) written by the Director (Administration), Home (Prison) Department, Govt. of Bihar, it is stated that the Department has earlier deprecated the approach of the Superintendent of the Divisional Prison, Ara to take work from the clerk in the ‘Pravesh Sakha’ of the jail even as the Assistant Superintendent is available in the jail. 4. It is stated that on 03.01.2020 an incidence took place inside the jail premises in which one inmate lodged in Hazipur Jail namely, Manish @ Telia was shot dead by another inmate lodged in the same jail namely, Raja Babu. A firm-arm weapon was used by the accused Raja Babu. An inquiry was conducted by a two Men Committee. In it’s report dated 07.01.2020 the said Committee found several deficiencies in the jail and suggested certain measures to remove those deficiencies. The Committee found that the fire-arm weapon would not have entered in the jail premises if the duties would have been performed diligently by the jail Warder/Dafa In-charge. The Committee found that the assailant was to be produced before the learned trial court on 03.01.2020 i.e. the date of occurrence, but he was not sent to the court. The Committee found that the fire-arm weapon would not have entered in the jail premises if the duties would have been performed diligently by the jail Warder/Dafa In-charge. The Committee found that the assailant was to be produced before the learned trial court on 03.01.2020 i.e. the date of occurrence, but he was not sent to the court. For this reason, the Committee inferred that the assailant was deliberately not sent to the learned court and in the view of the Committee, had the said assailant been sent to the learned court below on the fateful day then the said unfortunate incidence would not have taken place. The two Men Committee held the petitioner liable for not sending the said assailant in the trial court on the fateful day. 5. It is stated that vide Memo No. 143 dated 07.01.2020 the petitioner was placed under suspension which was later on revoked vide memo no. 3242 dated 28.05.2020. The petitioner was served with memo of charge vide letter no. 1215 dated 22.03.2020. There was a trivial alteration in the memo of charge vide letter no. 1478 dated 21.04.2020. Both the documents have been placed as Annexure ‘3’ and ‘3/1’ respectively to the writ application. 6. In the disciplinary proceeding the charges were proved against the petitioner, a copy of the inquiry report was served upon upon him and a second show cause was called for which was responded to, by the petitioner. Ultimately the petitioner was served with the order of punishment as contained in memo no. 5671 dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure ‘9’) whereby and whereby the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. An appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Prison) Department, Bihar vide Annexure ‘10’ to this writ application also failed and the dismissal of the appellate order has been communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 10951 dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure ‘11’). Submission on behalf of the Petitioner 7. Mr. Siddharth Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders as contained in Annexure ‘9’ and ‘11’ respectively on various grounds. 10951 dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure ‘11’). Submission on behalf of the Petitioner 7. Mr. Siddharth Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders as contained in Annexure ‘9’ and ‘11’ respectively on various grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the first instance that on a bare perusal of the memo of charge, it would appear that it contains a completely wrong fact that the entire responsibility of sending the assailant undertrial prisoner to the trial court on 03.01.2020 was of this petitioner. It is submitted that based on this completely wrong understanding of the responsibility of the petitioner, the charge further states by way of an inference that had the undertrial prisoner/assailant been sent to the court that day, the murder would not have taken place. It is in this way of the understanding that the charge no. 1 states that non-presentation of the undertrial prisoner/assailant in the trial court on the said date shows serious dereliction from duty and connivance with the prisoners as also disobedience to the order of the senior officer. Learned counsel submits that the charge is based on surmises and conjectures. To prove the charge against the petitioner, the department relied upon 12 pages report of the Two Men’s Committee, the photocopy of the minute book of the Superintendent, the ward register of prisoner barrack no. 6/4 and the prison hospital relating to 03.01.2020, the statement of the assailant Raja Babu, the custody warrant of the three co-accused Ravi Shankar @ Ravi Mishra, Kundan Kumar and Dhananjay Kumar @ Badal and the photocopy of the gate register, the statement of Sri Ramesh Prasad, the then superintendent of jail (under suspension), the statement of the petitioner (under suspension), the photocopy of the gate register and the written report of the Warder Sri Rajesh Kumar, Sri Braj Bhushan Sharma, Sri Akhilesh Pal, Sri Anil Kumar Baitha and Md. Firoz Alam. The Photocopy of the statement of Lower Division Clerk Sri Devesh Ranjan was also enclosed in support of the charge. 8. Learned counsel further submits that in the memo of charge nine (9) witnesses were shown but out of these nine (9) witnesses only three (3) witnesses were brought before the Inquiry Officer. Firoz Alam. The Photocopy of the statement of Lower Division Clerk Sri Devesh Ranjan was also enclosed in support of the charge. 8. Learned counsel further submits that in the memo of charge nine (9) witnesses were shown but out of these nine (9) witnesses only three (3) witnesses were brought before the Inquiry Officer. The Two Members of the Committee whose report was made basis to frame the charge did not appear in course of inquiry and the petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine them. The Two Men Committee report has been taken as a piece of evidence in course of inquiry even as the veracity of the same was not tested as no opportunity was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the statement of the assailant Raja Babu has been taken as a piece of evidence even as the said assailant was neither cited as a witness in support of the charge nor he was produced in course of inquiry for cross examination. 9. Learned counsel has heavily relied upon Rule 799 and 800 of the Bihar Prison Manual 2012 to submit that it is the Deputy Superintendent (Administration and Security) who shall be responsible for the safe custody of all warrants and he has to ensure that the undertrials are produced in the concerned court as warranted. In his absence, the general duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Superintendent is to be carried out by the Assistant Superintendent. It is stated that it is the Deputy Superintendent who has to supervise the search at the main gate and ensure that no prohibited/banned items are admitted inside the prison. In the present case, it is stated that the Deputy Superintendent was not even examined in course of inquiry. 10. Learned counsel submits that in this case, in course of inquiry altogether seven (7) witnesses were examined. Some of the witnesses whose names did not figure in the memo of charge namely, Sanjay Kumar Sah, Vijay Kumar, Raj Kishore Prasad and Amrendra Kumar have been examined without seeking leave of the enquiry officer. It is this, Sanjay Kumar Sah who was working as Assistant Superintendent of Jail, has stated that this petitioner was In-charge of Accounts and Pravesh Sakha. This witness has categorically stated that it is the duty of the Deputy Superintendent of Jail to send the inmates to the trial court. It is this, Sanjay Kumar Sah who was working as Assistant Superintendent of Jail, has stated that this petitioner was In-charge of Accounts and Pravesh Sakha. This witness has categorically stated that it is the duty of the Deputy Superintendent of Jail to send the inmates to the trial court. The other witnesses in course of inquiry has stated that the assailant was in a queue of inmates who were to be sent to the learned court on 03.01.2020. 11. Learned counsel submits that it has been a regular phenomenon in the matter of sending of undertrials to the trial court that due to various administrative reasons, all the inmates who are required in court are not sent. It is stated that on 03.01.2020 about 72 inmates were required in the trial court but out of 72 only 60 could be produced. It is stated that the same was the position on various dates between 16.12.2019 and 03.01.2020 which would be evident from the enclosures (Annexure (viii)) to the defence statement of the petitioner. 12. It is further submitted that vide Annexure ‘3/1’ the Superintendent, Divisional Prison, Hazipur submitted written report of six (6) other employees, however, those employees were not produced in course of inquiry. 13. Learned counsel submits that the inquiry officer has taken the Two Men’s Committee report and the statement of the assailant as a piece of evidence which is against the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that even as the petitioner pointed out several infirmities in the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority did not consider the same and passed a severe punishment of dismissal from service which has a civil consequence. 14. It is further submitted that the appellate authority has also failed to appreciate the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal and by merely reiterating the views of the inquiry officer, he has dismissed the appeal. Submission on behalf of the State 15. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. It is submitted that to support the charge against the petitioner, the presenting officer was directed to produce witnesses. Mr. Devesh Ranjan, who was made the new presenting officer, himself deposed as a witness and in presence of the petitioner the inquiry was conducted. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. It is submitted that to support the charge against the petitioner, the presenting officer was directed to produce witnesses. Mr. Devesh Ranjan, who was made the new presenting officer, himself deposed as a witness and in presence of the petitioner the inquiry was conducted. It is submitted that after submission of the inquiry report a second show cause was issued to the petitioner which was also responded and then the impugned order of dismissal from service was issued. The respondents have defended Annexure ‘9’ and ‘11’ as according to them those are well-reasoned order based on material facts, hence no interference is required with the same. 16. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the State has produced the official file of the disciplinary proceeding in which the deposition of the witnesses and the ordersheet of enquiry are available. This Court has perused the same. Consideration 17. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also on perusal of the records, this Court finds that the charge against the petitioner is based on the statement of allegation wherein it is stated that it was the petitioner who was fully responsible to send the under-trial prisoners to the trial court on the date of appearance. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also on perusal of the records, this Court finds that the charge against the petitioner is based on the statement of allegation wherein it is stated that it was the petitioner who was fully responsible to send the under-trial prisoners to the trial court on the date of appearance. The memo of charge reads as under: ^^vkjksi i= ¼2½ f}rh; Hkkx & vopkjk dnkpkj ds ykaNuks dk lkj fnukad 03-01-2020 dks eaMy dkjk] gkthiqj esa lalhfer fopkjk/khu canh euh'k dqekj mQZ usrkth mQZ rsfy;k] firk vejsUæ dqekj flag] lkfdu&rsfyk] Fkkuk jktkikdj] ftykⓈ'kkyh dks dkjk ds vUnj vU; lalhfer canh jktkckcw }kjk fiLVy ls xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj nh x;hA mDr vof/k esa Jh veksn dqekj&01] mPpoxhZ; fyfid eaMy dkjk] gkthiqj esa inLFkkfir ,oa dk;Zjr Fks rFkk Áos'k 'kk[kk ds ÁHkkj esa FksA canh euh’k dqekj mQZ usrkth mQZ rsfy;k dkjk vLirky esa HkrhZ FkkA fnukad 03-01-2020 dks vijkg~~u yXkHkx 02%30 cts canh d{k la[;k&6@4 dk ,d canh jktkckcw }kjk dkjk vLirky esa tkdj canh euh’k mQZ rsfy;k dks fiLVy ls xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj nh x;h ?kVuk dh frfFk fnukad 03-01-2020 dks fopkjk/khu canh jktkckcw ftlds }kjk canh euh’k dh gR;k dh x;h Fkh] mldk miLFkkiu vius vU; rhu lg vfHk;qDrksa ¼jfo'kadj dqekj mQZ jfo feJk] dqUnu dqekj] /kuUt; mQZ ckny½ ds lkFk xksjkSy Fkkuk dk.M la[;k&397@19] thŒvkjŒ 5957@19 esa fu/kkZfjr Fkh] fdUrq U;k;ky; esa miLFkku ds fy, buds }kjk vU; rhu lg vfHk;qDrksa ;Fkk jfo'kadj dqekj mQZ jfo feJk] dqUnu dqej /kUut; dqekj mQZ ckny dks rks Hkstk x;k ysfdu canh jktkckcw dks vdkj.k gh U;k;ky; miLFkkiu ds fy, ugha Hkstk x;kA blls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd canh jktkckcw dks tkucw>dj fnukad 03-01-2020 dks U;k;ky; miLFkkiu ds fy, ugha Hkstk x;kA mijksDr fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks vU; lg&vfHkqDrks lfgr canh jktkckcw dks Hkh U;k;ky; miLFkkiu gsrq Hkstus dh iw.kZ ftEesokjh budh Fkh] ysfdu mDr frfFk dks canh jktkckcw dks U;k;ky; miLFkkiu ds fy, ugha Hkstk x;kA ;fn canh jktkckcw dks vius lg&vfHkqDrksa ds lkFk U;k;ky; Hkst fn;k x;k gksrk rks og canh euh’k dh gR;k ugha dj ikrkA Jh veksn dqekj&01] mPpoxhZ; fyfid ds }kjk canh jktkckcw dks fu/kkZfjr frfFk ,oa le; ij U;k;ky; esa miLFkkiu gsrq ugha Hkstk tkuk buds drZO; ds Áfr ?kksj ykijokgh] LosPNkpkfjrk ,oa cafn;ksa ds lkFk lkaB&xkaB rFkk ojh; inkf/kdkjh ds vkns'k dh vogsyuk dks ifjyf{kr djrk gSA gLrk{kj@& v/kh{kd eaMy dkjk] gkthiqjA** 18. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Rule 799(vi) and 800 of the Prison Manual is concerned, this Court finds force in the said submission. Rule 799(vi) reads as under: “Deputy Superintendent (Administration and Security) shall be responsible for the safe custody of all warrants and the strict enforcement of their terms. He/she shall ensure that the under-trials are produced in the concerned courts as warranted. He/she shall ensure that conviction warrants are arranged date of release wise. He/she shall initiate appropriate action on release warrants, bail warrants etc.” 19. The respondents have not led any evidence to show that any written order was issued to the petitioner to perform the duties of the Deputy Superintendent (Administration and Security). There is no provision authorizing delegation of power of the Deputy Superintendent upon a head clerk. In this background, this Court has looked into the statement of the Assistant Superintendent who deposed as management witness only to see whether the same has been duly considered by the enquiry officer. Considering this scope of judicial review in such matters, this Court would confine it’s consideration at this stage only to examine as to whether the enquiry officer has considered the prima-facie relevant materials or has submitted his report ignoring the same. The Assistant Superintendent has admitted in answer to question no. ‘3’ that he was in-charge of accounts and Pravesh Sakha. In answer to question no. ‘4’ this witness has stated that the responsibility to send the under-trial prisoners to court was upon the gate warder and the Deputy Superintendent. Question no. 3 and question no. 4 with their respective answers are being reproduced herein-under: ^^¼3½ Á'u%& vki eaMy dkjk] gkthiqj esa fdl&fdlk 'kk[kk ds ÁHkkj esa Fks\ mÙkj%& eSa ys[kk ,oa Áos'k 'kk[kk ds ÁHkkj esa FkkA ¼4½ Á'u%& cafn;ksa dks dksVZ Hkstus ,oa dksVZ ls okil vkuk fdldh fuxjkuh esa gksrk Fkk\ mÙkj%& cafn;ksa dks dksVZ Hkstus dk nkf;Ro xsV okMZj ,oa mik/kh{kd dk FkkA cM+k ckcw }kjk dksVZ iwtkZ fn;k tkrk Fkk] rks cM+k teknkj }kjk canh dks xsV rd igqapk;k tkrk Fkk ,oa xsVokMZj }kjk canh dks mik/kh{kd ds vkns'k ls ckgj Hkstk tkrk FkkA** 20. These above statements are definitely relevant materials. 21. These above statements are definitely relevant materials. 21. This Court further finds that the Gate-Warder Sri Amrendra Kumar and Sri Lal Mohan Singh have stated that the assailant had not gone to the court and he had furnished this information to ‘Bada Babu’ and Deputy Superintendent Md. Yunus. The presenting officer did not put any question to this witness suggesting that it was the total responsibility of the petitioner to send the under-trial prisoners to court. 22. This Court has noticed from the evidence of Sri Vijay Kumar, the head warder that he did not deny the suggestion of the presenting officer that he had the responsibility to send all the prisoners to court on 03.01.2020. This witness rather stated that he had taken all the prisoners who had to go to court inside the gate and the assailant was one of them, in the meantime he was called by the lady medical officer in the female ward and he went there leaving the responsibility of sending the prisoners to court upon in-charge-cum-head warder Sri Raj Kishore Singh. The witness Raj Kishore has, however, denied the stand of Sri Vijay Kumar. This petitioner also appeared before the inquiry officer and explained his duties. It appears that the presenting officer did not even suggest to this petitioner that it was his total responsibility to send the prisoners to the court. 23. From the order dated 06.01.2022 recorded by the enquiry officer, it appears that the newly appointed presenting officer Sri Devesh Ranjan submitted a written application stating that he was appointed as inquiry officer on 05.01.2022 and he does not find requirement of producing any other evidence in addition to what have already been produced by the previous presenting officer. 24. This Court finds from the records that in this case vide order dated 16.09.2021, it is recorded that the petitioner and Devesh Ranjan appeared as witness on the said date and they were examined. On the same day, the presenting officer requested the enquiry officer to grant time to produce the gate-warder Sri Amrendra Kumar and Sri Lal Mohan Singh, head warder Sri Vijay Kumar and the Assistant Superintendent Sri Sanjay Kumar Sah. The enquiry was fixed for 30.09.2021. On the same day, the presenting officer requested the enquiry officer to grant time to produce the gate-warder Sri Amrendra Kumar and Sri Lal Mohan Singh, head warder Sri Vijay Kumar and the Assistant Superintendent Sri Sanjay Kumar Sah. The enquiry was fixed for 30.09.2021. On the said date, the presenting officer examined the Assistant Superintendent Sri Sanjay Kumar Sah, head warder Sri Vijay Kumar, warder Sri Rajesh Kumar, Sri Brajbhushan Sharma, Sri Akhilesh Pal, Sri Anil Kumar Baitha, Md. Firoz Alam, Lal Mohan Singh and Sri Amrendra Kumar. Thereafter, the record was fixed for 08.10.2021. On the said date, the then presenting officer Sri Rajeev Kumar Dubey remained busy in another enquiry, hence the matter was adjourned. On the said date, Sri Raj Kishore Prasad, head warder was present as witness. He was examined on the next date on 11.10.2021. Thereafter no witness was examined and ultimately on 06.01.2022 on the request of the presenting officer evidence was closed. 25. In the given circumstance, this Court did not find any material on the record to show that the two men committee’s report and the statements of the under-trial prisoner/assailant were brought on record as evidence. Merely by enclosing those documents with the memo of charge, the documents would not become a piece of evidence. Even as the Rule of evidence would not apply in it’s strict sense in case of a disciplinary proceeding, the principles of nature justice would require that the author of those documents were required to present themselves before the enquiry officer to prove the contents thereof and withstand the test of cross-examination by the delinquent employee. 26. To this Court, it appears that the enquiry officer has failed to consider the prima-facie relevant materials on the record and ignored the submissions of the petitioner contained in his defence statement and the second show cause. In such circumstance, the disciplinary authority has also failed to consider the infirmities present in the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority has passed the impugned orders in a mechanical manner and imposed the order of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. 27. In such circumstance, the disciplinary authority has also failed to consider the infirmities present in the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority has passed the impugned orders in a mechanical manner and imposed the order of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. 27. Referring to the nature of a disciplinary proceeding and the responsibility of the enquiry officer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 has referred the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Moni Shankar vs. Union of India, (2008) 3 SCC 484 in paragraph ‘17’ of the judgment as under: “17. In Moni Shankar vs. Union of India, (2008) 3 SCC 484 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 819 this Court held: (SCC p. 492, Para 17) “17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the Department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality.” 28. In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the enquiry report and the decision of the disciplinary authority suffer from inherent defects and infirmities as the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on the materials available on the record. In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the enquiry report and the decision of the disciplinary authority suffer from inherent defects and infirmities as the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on the materials available on the record. The enquiry officer has relied upon certain documents which were though enclosed with the memo of charge but were never adduced as evidence in consonance with the principles of natural justice whereunder the authors of those documents were required to appear before the enquiry officer to support the contents of the documents and the petitioner would have got an opportunity to cross-examine them. The reliance by the enquiry officer upon the statement of a under-trial prisoner who was himself assailant, before two men committee would prove fatal to the enquiry report. He was neither a charge-sheet witness nor was ever produced before the enquiry officer, still his statement has been relied upon to prove the charge against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority having failed to consider these aspects of the matter which were duly pointed out to him by the petitioner has acted contrary to statutory scheme of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘service rules’) and against the principles of natural justice. The appellate authority has done no better as he has dismissed the appeal by merely reiterating the views of the disciplinary authority. 29. In result, the impugned orders as contained in Annexure-9 including the enquiry report and ‘11’ respectively are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority for taking fresh steps from the stage of submission of enquiry report. The enquiry officer shall submit a fresh report upon consideration of the materials collected in course of enquiry which are available on the record. The enquiry officer shall hear both the sides and submit his report to the disciplinary authority as early as possible. All endeavours be made to conclude the disciplinary proceeding within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for reinstatement and payment of salary for the period the petitioner has remained under dismissal. All endeavours be made to conclude the disciplinary proceeding within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for reinstatement and payment of salary for the period the petitioner has remained under dismissal. This Court would remind itself of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others vs. B. Karunakar and Others, (1993) 4 SCC 727 wherein, in paragraph ‘31’ their lordships have laid down the law as under: “31. Hence, in all cases where the enquiry officer’s report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Court/Tribunal and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to short cuts. Since it is the Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only if the Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment. Where after following the above procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. Where after following the above procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the report, should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the correct position in law.” 31. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Karunakar (supra), the disciplinary authority shall proceed to pass an appropriate order for reinstatement of the petitioner in service for purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding and so far as the consequential benefits as prayed by the petitioner is concerned, the same would depend upon the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding only. The Hon’ble Apex Court judgment would guide the disciplinary authority in this regard. 32. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.