JUDGMENT : (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Girijesh Tripathi, learned standing counsel for respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while submitting the Enquiry report which was initiated in a disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and finally culminated into rejection of the revision preferred by the petitioner for challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority wherein the same ground has been taken that the enquiry report as submitted before the disciplinary authority was having the report after enquiry with a conclusion for imposition of the penalty prescribed under the rules pertaining to major penalty and the same is unwarranted while placing the enquiry report wherein charges levelled against the petitioner has been found proved. While assailing the order of punishment dated 10.12.2011 the ground for assailing the same with regard to recommendation of punishment while preferring the enquiry report has been strongly relied upon by the petitioner but no material consideration has been drawn either by the appellate authority or by the revisional authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged all the three orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority and substantiated the stand which is squarely covered with the judgments rendered by this court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that, it is required on the part of the disciplinary authority to provide copy of the enquiry report alongwith show cause notice without making his mind for proposed punishment. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the legislation framed the rules specially with regard to the conduction of enquiry and disciplinary proceedings against the government servants a different level has been set up so that the unaffected and free thought of process may be prevailed while taking a decision over the subject matter put up before him in the shape of either accepting the contentions of the grounds taken up in the punishment order or the grounds put forward for challenging the same. 4. 4. At the very initial level when the Enquiry report has been submitted before the disciplinary authority by the Enquiry officer as nominated at the time of initiation of disciplinary proceeding the recommendation of punishment is not at all permissible since being the initial stage where the disciplinary authority must be free from all prejudices/thoughts against the delinquent employee, otherwise there might be a great chances for infiltration of impartial conclusion which is warranted to be arrived by the disciplinary authority while adjudicating the enquiry report in pursuance to the charges levelled against the employee alongwith the rebuttal in the shape of the reply as submitted by the charged officer/employee of the department. 5. The recommendation of the punishment is the direct interference in the power of the disciplinary authority which has never been permitted or granted by the statutory provisions as contained in the disciplinary and appellate rules for conduction of the enquiry and culmination of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against any government employee and as such the same has been negated by this court in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 2230 of 2014 decided on 28.3.2018 (Shiv Raj Singh vs. State of U.P. and other), Writ-A No. 23402 of 2014 decided on 23.4.2014 (Yashpal Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). 6. The above mentioned decisions of this court is broadly based on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. vs. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 alongwith the case of Allahabad Bank vs. Prem Narain Pande and others (1995) 6 SCC 634 . 7. Per contra learned standing counsel vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition but the principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court which has been followed by this court while adjudicating the controversy as raised in similar situated conditions and cases as mentioned above has not been denied, learned standing counsel based his argument that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is justified since in the disciplined post absence of only of few hours may attribute to the penalty as awarded to the petitioner, in the instant matter the petitioner absented himself from the duty for more than two years which culminated into order of suspension and thereafter dismissal from service after due conduction of the disciplinary proceeding against him. 8. 8. So far as the charges levelled against the petitioner, the same has been explained on various grounds, inter-alia the prolonged illness of his wife compelled him to stay without seeking formal approval of leave but the same has been intimated well within time. The ground of recommendation of punishment at the time of submitting the enquiry report as well as on the other grounds as mentioned in the memo of appeal as well as revision the orders dated 10.12.2011, 29.4.2012 and 29.8.2012 passed by respondent nos. 5,4 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. The respondent no.5 is hereby directed to treat the petitioner as a regular incumbent of the department and extend all the benefits being the retired employee of police department after attaining the age of superannuation in the month of January, 2015 itself, the entire exercise with regard to extension of benefit of back wages, retiral dues and other admissible increments shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.