JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 20.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3277 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the writ petition was allowed passing following directions: “9. Be that as it may. Since similarly situated co employees, whose writ applications has already been allowed by this Court and further they have been reinstated in service and also received back wages pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench; as such, there is no reason that these petitioners who are the legal heirs will not be entitled for consequential monetary benefits when the case of the original-petitioner is identical. 10. Having regard to the facts of the case, the instant writ application, is, hereby allowed and the impugned order as contained in Office Order No. 1552 dated 07.12.2007 & all subsequent orders, are hereby, quashed and set aside. Since the original petitioner has died, as such the present petitioners will approach the respondent No.4 along with copy of this order by filing a joint representation for payment of monetary benefits within a period of three months. The moment such representation will be filed by the present petitioners before the respondent No.4; he shall pass an order with respect to all consequential monetary benefits which has been given to the other similarly situated persons since the original-petitioner has died. The respondent No.4 is further directed to pass an appropriate order for retiral benefits so that the widow of the original/petitioner can get the retiral benefits in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in writ petition, reads as under: 3. The original writ petitioner, who was an employee of Central Industrial Security Force (in short ‘CISF’), was put under suspension vide order dated 27.06.2007 and subsequently vide letter dated 05.07.2007, charge-sheet was served upon him alleging therein that he was found involved in incident of facilitating theft of scrap material and copper from Bokaro Steel Plant on 23.06.2007. Further, he gave instruction to Constable Rajender Singh to allow Truck No. WB39-9954 to enter the premise of Relling Mill Area of Bokaro Steel Plant which was carrying the theft material. Further, he gave instruction to Constable Rajender Singh to allow Truck No. WB39-9954 to enter the premise of Relling Mill Area of Bokaro Steel Plant which was carrying the theft material. On the charges aforesaid, the original writ petitioner was proceeded departmentally in which he was found guilty by the enquiry officer, basis upon which the disciplinary authority awarded punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 07.12.2007, against which, the original petitioner preferred appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2008. Against the order passed by appellate authority, the petitioner preferred revision which was also dismissed vide order dated 19.05.2009. 4. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authority the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3277 of 2009, which was allowed vide order dated 20.09.2021 by which the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate and revisional authority was quashed and set aside with direction upon the respondents-authorities to disburse all the monetary benefit to the dependants of the original writ petitioner, who died during pendency of the writ petition, within stipulated period of time, against which, the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 5. It is evident from the facts, as referred hereinabove, based upon the pleading made in the writ petition, that the original writ petitioner who was employee of CISF while posted at one gate of Bokaro Steel Plant, a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited, as Inspector (Crime) was found to be not performing his duty with utmost sincerity since one truck bearing Registration No. WB39-9954 was found loaded with scrap material and copper near Weight Bridge No. 5 inside the factory premises. The vehicle was seized by the CISF personnel. Consequent upon seizure of the truck from factory premises, the original-petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Thereafter, charge-sheet was served upon the original petitioner alleging inter-alia that while he was deployed on duty on 23.06.2007 he failed to detect unauthorized entry of truck bearing Registration No.WB-39-9954 which entered the premises of the plant without any valid document and was loaded Scrap/Copper material parked near Weight Bridge No.5. Thereafter, charge-sheet was served upon the original petitioner alleging inter-alia that while he was deployed on duty on 23.06.2007 he failed to detect unauthorized entry of truck bearing Registration No.WB-39-9954 which entered the premises of the plant without any valid document and was loaded Scrap/Copper material parked near Weight Bridge No.5. The original petitioner submitted his reply to the charges leveled against him denying and disputing all the allegations but the enquiry officer found the charge proved based upon which the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from services. The original-writ petitioner, namely, Sukanta Kumar Patnaik had preferred writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3277 of 2009 challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority and its confirmation by the appellate and revisional authority but during pendency of the writ petition, the original writ petition died, therefore, vide order dated 14.09.2021 the legal heirs i.e., wife, the daughter and son were impleaded as party to contest the case being petitioner no. 1, 2 and 3. 6. The matter was heard by learned Single Judge and the writ petition was decided on the basis of concession made by Mr. Laxman Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel who has conceded that the case of the original petitioner is same and similar with the case of Hira Lal Dubey, Dhananjoy Hansda and Jay Ram Manjhi and accordingly, the writ petition was allowed by quashing the order of dismissal and all consequential orders with directions to pay all consequential monetary benefits as extended to similarly situated persons. 7. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that although the writ petition has been disposed of on the basis of concession of Mr. Laxman Kumar, learned CGC but the said concession has been given contrary to the law since the case of the writ petitioner is not identical to that of Hira Lal Dubey, Dhananjoy Hansda and Jay Ram Manjhi. It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the case of the original writ petitioner is not identical with Hira Lal Dubey, Dhananjoy Hansda and Jay Ram Manjhi by making comparison with the memorandum of charge but only on the basis of submission the impugned order has been passed. 8. It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the case of the original writ petitioner is not identical with Hira Lal Dubey, Dhananjoy Hansda and Jay Ram Manjhi by making comparison with the memorandum of charge but only on the basis of submission the impugned order has been passed. 8. It has been contended by referring to the charge leveled against Jay Ram Manjhi that though the charge leveled against Jay Ram Manjhi and the original writ petitioner is of same occurrence but that does not mean that it is identical in nature as charges leveled against both are different and distinct. But the learned Single Judge without taking into consideration these facts into consideration has passed the impugned order, which requires interference by this Court. 9. Mrs. Jaswindar Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-writ petitioners has submitted by defending the order passed by learned Single Judge by taking the ground that the nature of charge as leveled against the original writ petitioner is lesser in gravity with respect to said Jay Ram Manjhi. It has been submitted that the allegation against the Jay Ram Manjhi is that he was deputed on Gate on the date of occurrence as shift In-charge and at that time the vehicle in question has entered into the premises. Contention therefore has been raised that the member of the security force who is having duty at the gate is having more accountability in comparison to that of others, who are discharging their duty in the office. However, the learned Single Judge has gone into the question of parity with case of Jay Ram Manjhi, Hira Lal Dubey and Dhananjoy Hansda. 10. It has further been submitted that though the case of Hira Lal Dubey and Dhananjoy Hansda is on different footing but the case of original writ petitioner and Jay Ram Manjhi is based upon same occurrence. 11. Therefore, the learned Single Judge if after taking into consideration the allegation levelled against Jay Ram Manjhi as per charge and treating it to be identical with the case of original writ petitioner has quashed the order of dismissal it cannot be said to suffer from error. 12. 11. Therefore, the learned Single Judge if after taking into consideration the allegation levelled against Jay Ram Manjhi as per charge and treating it to be identical with the case of original writ petitioner has quashed the order of dismissal it cannot be said to suffer from error. 12. It has further been submitted that the said Hira Lal Dubey, Dhananjoy Hansda and Jay Ram Manjhi preferred writ petitions being W.P. (S) No. 3597 of 2009, W.P. (S) No. 4558 of 2008 and W.P. (S) No. 4613 of 2008, which were heard together and disposed of vide common order dated 22.09.2017, by which, the impugned order of dismissal was quashed and set aside. Even said Jay Ram Majhi preferred appeal being L.P.A. No. 787 of 2018 only to the extent of back wages since the same was denied by the writ Court, which was allowed vide order dated 14.08.2019 directing the respondents-authorities to grant all back wages, hence, there is no reason not to extend the same benefit to the petitioners. 13. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents on the aforesaid premises has submitted that since the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has passed the impugned order which requires no interference by this Court. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 15. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 15. The fact, which is not in dispute in this case is that the original writ petitioner, now deceased, was proceeded departmentally by issuance of memorandum of charge dated 05.07.2007, which is quoted as under: ^^vkjksi 1 cy la[;k 873390019 fujh{kd@dk;Z ,l ds iVuk;d] dsvkSlqc bdkbZ ch,l,y cksdkjks] dks] fujh{kd ¼vijk/k½ ds dk;ZHkkj ds nkSjku] fnukad 23-05-2007 dks Vªd la0 MCy;wch39-9954 ij 'ksM ua0&17 ls LØSi eSVsfj;y ,oa rkacs dh lkexzh] dks] la;a= ls ckgj vukf/kd`r :i ls ys tkus ds edln ls yksM djkus dh ?kVuk esa lafyIr ik;k x;k gS fujh{kd@dk;Z ,l ds iVuk;d dk mDr d`R;] ?kksj vuq'kklughurk] nqjkpkj] Hkz"Vkpkj ,oa ,d l'kL= cy ds lnL; dh e;kZnk ds izfrdwy gSA vr% vkjksi gSA vkjksi 2 cy la[;k 873390019 fujh{kd@dk;Z ,l ds iVuk;d] dsvkSlqc bdkbZ ch,l,y cksdkjks] us] fujh{kd ¼vijk/k½ ds dk;ZHkkj ds nkSjku] fnukad 23-05-2007 dks] jksfyax fey xsV ij rSukr vkj{kd jktsUnz flag dks] fujh{kd@vijk/k ds in dk gokyk nsrs gq,] cxSj mfpr nLrkost ds] Vªd la0- MCY;wch39&9954 dks] 'ksM ua0&17 esa vukf/kd`r izos'k o ogka ls vukf/kd`r :i ls] mDr okgu ij lkeku yksM gksus ds mijkar] mls ckgj tkus nsus dk funsZ'k fn;kA bl izdkj fujh{kd@dk;Z ,l ds iVuk;d us] fujh{kd@vijk/k in ds 'kfDr dk nq:i;ksx fd;k] tksfd ?kksj vuq'kklughurk] nqjkpkj ,oa ,d l'kL= cy ds lnL; dh e;kZnk ds izfrdwy gSA vr% vkjksi gSA vkjksi 3 cy la[;k 873390019 fujh{kd@dk;Z ,l ds iVuk;d] dsvkSlqc bdkbZ ch,l,y cksdkjks] us] fujh{kd ¼vijk/k½ ds dk;ZHkkj ds nkSjku] Vªd la0 MCY;wch39&9954 dks la;a= ds vanj vukf/kd`r LØSi eSVsfj;y ,oa rkacs dh lkexzh ds lkFk idM+s tkus ds mijkar] fnukad 23-05-07 dks yxHkx 15%30 cts jkSfyax fey ,fj;k esa] vkj{kd jktsUnz flag dks mDr Vªd ds laca/k esa] fdlh dks dqN u crkus gsrq dgk rFkk ikVhZ ds vkneh dk lgkjk ysdj] mDr vkj{kd dks /kedk;kA bl izdkj fujh{kd@dk;Z ,l ds iVuk;d us] vius dfu"B cy lnL; dks] Mjk&/kedk dj] mlls xyr xfrfof/k;ksa esa lg;ksx izkIr fd;k] tksfd ?kksj vuq'kklughurk] nqjkpkj ,oa ,d l'kL= cy ds lnL; dh e;kZnk ds izfrdwy gSA vr% vkjksi gSA vkjksi 4 cy la[;k 873390019 fujh{kd@dk;Z ,l ds iVuk;d] dsvkSlqc bdkbZ ch,l,y cksdkjks] us fnukad 28-05-2007 dks] vijk/k o vklwpuk vuqHkkx dsvkSlqc bdkbZ ch,l,y cksdkjks esa] izkFkfed tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk] vkj{kd jktsUnz flag ls djk;s x;s igpku ijsM ds mijkar] igpku ijsM dh izfØ;k izksflfMax ij] gLrk{kj fd;s tkus ls] badkj dj ljdkjh dk;Zokgh esa O;o/kku mRiUu djus dk iz;kl fd;kA bl izdkj fujh{kd@dk;Z ,-l ds iVuk;d us] ljdkjh dk;Z esa vlg;ksx fd;k] tksfd ?kksj vuq'kklughurk] nqjkpkj ,oa ,d l'kL= cy ds lnL; dh e;kZnk ds izfrdwy gSA vr% vkjksi gSA 16. It is evident from the aforesaid charge that while the original writ petitioner was posted as Inspector in the Bokaro Steel Plant he alleged to have instructed one CISF Personnel Rajendra Singh to let the entry of the vehicle in without any valid document and assisted in loading of the scrap materials. 17. On the aforesaid charge, the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and submitted enquiry report. It is evident from the enquiry report that the said Rajendra Singh was examined as P.W. 5 wherein he has disclosed that he was instructed by one crime inspector to allow the said vehicle to enter into the premises and he has given the physique of said crime inspector and claimed to have identified the said crime inspector to be the original writ petitioner, namely, Sukanta Kumar Patnaik. Likewise other witnesses were examined and based upon their testimonies charges have been found to be proved and accordingly, the order of punishment of dismissal from service has been passed. 18. From the pleading available on record, the moot question that requires consideration by this Court is as to whether the charge framed against the original writ petitioner vis-à-vis said Jay Ram Manjhi was similar or not? 19. 18. From the pleading available on record, the moot question that requires consideration by this Court is as to whether the charge framed against the original writ petitioner vis-à-vis said Jay Ram Manjhi was similar or not? 19. This Court, therefore, requires to refer herein the charge leveled against the said Jay Ram Majhi, which reads as under: v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk cy la[;k 741310194 in lgk;d mifujh{kd@dk;Z ts-vkj- ek¡>h] ds fo:) dsvkSlqc fu;ekoyh&2001 ¼la'kksf/kr fu;ekoyh&2003½ ds fu;e&35 ds rgr tk¡p djus dk izLrko gSA nqjkpkj ,oa nks"kkjksi.k ds vkjksi] ftlds ckjs esa tk¡p djus dk izLrko gS] dk lkj layXu vkjksi ds vuqPNsn fooj.k ifjf'k"V&1 esa fn;k x;k gSA vkjksi ds izR;sd vuqPNsn dks iqf"V esa nqjkpkj ,oa nks"kkjksi.k ds vkjksiksa dk C;ksjk Hkh ¼ifjf'k"V&10½ layXu gSA nLrkosth ,oa xokgksa dh lwph Hkh ftlds }kjk vkjksiksa ds vuqPNsnksa dks izekf.kr djus dk izLrko gS ¼ifjf'k"V&3 ,oa 4½ esa layXu gSA 02- cy la[;k 741310194 in lgk;d mifujh{kd@dk;Z] ts-vkj- ek¡>h] dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og vius cpko esa bl Kkiu ds izkfIr ds 10 fnuksa ds vUnj fyf[kr c;ku bl dk;kZy; dks izLrqr djsa vkSj ;g Hkh mYys[k djsa fd D;k og O;fDrxr :i ls mifLFkr gksdj vkjksi ls lacaf/kr lquokbZ djkus dh bPNqd gSaA 03- cy la[;k 741310194 in lgk;d mifujh{kd@dk;Z] ts-vkj- ek¡>h] dks ;g Hkh lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkjksi ds dsoy mUgha vuqPNsnksa ds ckjs esa tk¡p dh tk,xh] tks mUgsa ekU; ugha gksaxsA vr% mUgsa vkjksi ds vuqPNsn dks Li"V :i ls Lohdkj ;k vLohdkj djuk pkfg,A 04- cy la[;k 741310194 in lgk;d mi fujh{kd@dk;Z] ts-vkj- ek¡>h] dks vkxs ;g Hkh lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn og iSjk&2 esa fn;s x;s le;kof/k ;k mlls igys vius cpko i{k esa fyf[kr fooj.k izLrqr ugha djrk gS ;k tk¡p izkf/kdkjh ds le{k O;fDrxr :i ls mifLFkr ugha gksrk gS ;k dsvkSlqc fu;ekoyh&2001 ¼la'kksf/kr fu;ekoyh&2003½ ds fu;e&35 mica/kksa ;k mDr fu;e ds vuqlj.k esa tkjh fd;s x;s vkns'kksa@vuqns'kksa ds vuqikyu esa vlQy jgrk gS rks tk¡p vf/kdkjh mlds fo:) ,d&i{kh; tk¡p dj ldrk gSA 05- ifjf'k"V&3 esa n'kkZ, x;s lHkh nLrkostksa dh izfr bl Kkiu ds lkFk layXu gSA 06- Kkiu dh ikorh Hksth tk,A 20. It is evident from the aforesaid imputation of charge that said Jay Ram Manjhi was deputed at Mansa Singh Gate as Shift In-charge and it is who against whom the allegation is that he allowed the entry of the said vehicle without any valid document. The said vehicle subsequently has been found to be loaded with scrap material and copper material and accordingly, the charge of gross indiscipline, misconduct and dereliction from duty has been framed. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants-authorities has though tried to impress upon the Court that the nature of allegation against the writ petitioner and the said Jay Ram Manjhi is different but we are not in agreement with the said submission for the reason that the charge against the original writ petitioner is that while he was posted as Inspector in the Unit of Bokaro Steel Plant he allowed the entry of said vehicle which subsequently was found to be loaded with scrap materials and copper scrap. Further he instructed constable, Rajendra Singh to let the vehicle go outside of the premises whereas said Jay Ram Majhi was posted as Shift In-charge at Mansa Singh Gate, who allowed the said truck to enter into the premises. 22. In our considered view the accountability upon the personnel who is posted at entry gate, being shift In-charge as the case herein, is more in quantum in comparison to that of the personnel posted and was discharging his duty inside the unit, it is for the reason that if the personnel posted at Gate would have performed its duty with utmost sincerity and restricted the said vehicle in entry into the premises there would not have been any occurrence of alleged theft, as alleged against the original writ petitioner. Hence, the accountability upon the personnel posted at entry level gate is having more. 23. Further the allegation against the writ petitioner is that he has instructed constable Rajendra Singh not to interrupt the loading of the scrap into the said vehicle as also instructed that let the said vehicle go outside the premises but the very identity of the writ petitioner has not been given by said Rajendra Singh to whom the original writ petitioner had instructed not to interrupt in loading of scrap material, save and except giving description of his physique by length and width. 24. 24. However, on conducting T.I.P. he identified the original writ petitioner. Then the question arises that when the said constable Rajendra Singh is also of the same Unit and when he was instructed by the original writ petitioner, the Inspector, how can it be believed that the said constable namely, Rajendra Singh did not recognize the said inspector by face, which itself is clear from the fact that he has not disclosed the name of inspector, the deceased-writ petitioner, rather, he has only disclosed the physique, as would appear from the testimony of said Rajendra Singh. 25. Be that as it may, we are not scrutinizing the finding recorded by the enquiry officer since the finding of enquiry officer is not an issue in this case rather the only issue that why the benefit which has been granted to Hira Lal Dubey, Dhananjoy Hansda and Jay Ram Manjhi be not extended to the original writ petitioner, as the view has been taken by the learned Single Judge. 26. It is admitted fact herein that the said Hira Lal Dubey, Dhananjoy Hansda and Jay Ram Manjhi, who were continuing as Head Constable, Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector (Shift In-charge) respectively preferred writ petitions being W.P. (S) No. 3597 of 2009, W.P. (S) No. 4558 of 2008 and W.P. (S) No. 4613 of 2008, challenging inter alia impugned orders of punishment passed by disciplinary authority which was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authority with further prayer for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 27. The writ petitions were heard together and disposed of vide common order dated 22.09.2017, by which, the impugned order of dismissal was quashed and set aside. Since there was no order for back wages, said Jay Ram Majhi preferred appeal being L.P.A. No. 787 of 2018 only to the extent of grant of back wages, which was allowed vide order dated 14.08.2019 directing the respondents-authorities to grant all back wages. 28. Since there was no order for back wages, said Jay Ram Majhi preferred appeal being L.P.A. No. 787 of 2018 only to the extent of grant of back wages, which was allowed vide order dated 14.08.2019 directing the respondents-authorities to grant all back wages. 28. For this reason also that the order passed by the writ Court quashing the impugned order of punishment has not been challenged by the respondents-authorities and further for grant of back wages the said Jay Ram Majhi preferred which was allowed directing for grant of full back wages, we are of the view that there is no reason to take a different view and deny the benefit which has granted to similarly situated employee i.e., Jay Ram Majhi. 29. This Court having discussed the fact that the gravity of charge leveled against the original writ petitioner vis-à-vis Jay Ram Manjhi is similar and even the case of the petitioner is on better footing, is proceeding to discuss about the concession given by learned CGC, Mr. Laxman Kumar, who had represented the Union of India before the writ Court. 30. In view of discussion made hereinabove, we are of the view that it cannot be said to be a wrong concession in view of the fact that the nature of allegation against the Jay Ram Manjhi and original writ petitioner are identical which cannot be denied rather as per the discussion made by us, the gravity of nature of offence in case of Jay Ram Manjhi is more than that of original writ petitioner. 31. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant therefore, the case of the appellant is not treated to be identical to said Jay Ram Manjhi according to our considered view has no substance. 32. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. 33. Contention has been raised on behalf of appellants that the original writ petitioner is not entitled for the back wages since he has not performed the duty as such applying the principle of ‘no work no pay’, the writ petitioners are not entitled for back wages. 34. In response, it has been submitted on behalf of writ petitioners-respondents that the said Jay Ram Manjhi has already been extended with the benefit of full back wages, after passing of order in intra-court appeal, hence, there is no reason to deny the same. 35. 34. In response, it has been submitted on behalf of writ petitioners-respondents that the said Jay Ram Manjhi has already been extended with the benefit of full back wages, after passing of order in intra-court appeal, hence, there is no reason to deny the same. 35. This Court taking into consideration the order passed in L.P.A. No. 787 of 2018, [Jay Ram Majhi Vs. Union of India & Ors] whereby the appellant Jay Ram Manjhi has been directed to be paid all consequential benefits for the period he was out of service treating it to be on duty period, is of the view that same benefit is to be extended to the original writ petitioner. 36. Furthermore, since the question of ‘no work no pay’ has been agitated on behalf of appellants as such at this juncture reference of provision of dies non is required to be made as provided under Rule 55 of the C.I.S.F. Rules, which speaks that the period will not be treated to be on duty if the finding recorded by the enquiry officer remain in-tact, meaning thereby if the order of dismissal has been passed by the original authority and if the same has been reversed to that of another punishment consequence of which if will be reinstatement in service then in that circumstance the delinquent employee will not be entitled for the wages for the intervening period. But in case of exoneration from the charges, the period will be treated to be on duty and hence, the wages will be taken into consideration. For ready reference, Rule 55 of the CISF Rules is quoted hereunder as: “55. But in case of exoneration from the charges, the period will be treated to be on duty and hence, the wages will be taken into consideration. For ready reference, Rule 55 of the CISF Rules is quoted hereunder as: “55. Dies-non - Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules a disciplinary authority while passing final order to impose a penalty upon an enrolled member of the Force or an appellate authority or a revising authority may, on reinstatement of an enrolled member of the Force in service after setting aside a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement without exonerating such enrolled member of the Force of the charges which resulted in any of these penalties, after giving an opportunity to the enrolled member of the Force concerned to show cause against such action and for reasons to be recorded in writing, order that the intervening period between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement as the case may be and the date of reinstatement be treated as dies-non for purposes of service. 37. Herein, the facts of the case is that the learned Single Judge has quashed the order of dismissal by considering the case at par with the Jay Ram Manjhi, which itself clarifies that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer has merged with the order of punishment on its acceptance basis upon which the order of dismissal has been passed and the moment the order of dismissal has been quashed and set aside the implied meaning of that will be that the finding of the enquiry has also been said to be not in existence. 38. This Court, in view of discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the original writ petitioner will be treated to be exonerated from the charge and in that view of the matter the concerned employee will be entitled for full back wages for the intervening period. 39. Here, it would apt to mention that during pendency of the writ petition since the original writ petitioner has died as such the original writ petitioner will be entitled for full back wages till he was alive, if already not attained the age of superannuation, and after that dependents will be entitled to get death-cum-retiral benefits, in accordance with law. 40. 40. This Court in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view that the learned Single Judge since has passed the order taking into consideration the fact in entirety and accepting the concession of the CGC, the writ Court is correct in passing the judgment impugned. 41. Accordingly, the instant intra-court appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. 42. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.