ORDER : 1. The petitioner, in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has prayed for the following reliefs: 1) Writ of certiorari, thereby quashing the Enquiry Proceeding dated 28.08.2004, order of termination No. Estt/DE/7B/3(E)/314-60 dated 22.01.2005 and rejection of appeal dated 06.05.2005. 2) Writ of mandamus thereby issuing direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in the service. 3) And/or to pass any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the present set of circumstances. 2. The facts under the cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Constable in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on 27.08.1993, and on 19.11.2003 when the petitioner was posted and deputed as a Rear Sentry in the second floor of a building housing BSNL office in Srinagar, at 17:30 hrs, in the evening, two militants made an entry into the said building through front gate and engaged into firing causing immense loss to the building resulting into initiation of a preliminary inquiry initiated by the respondents herein by one Shri R. K. Mahajan, Assistant Commandant, who after conducting the same recommended holding of a disciplinary enquiry besides others against the petitioner herein, whereupon said inquiry was ordered by the Commandant/Respondent 3 herein and a memorandum dated 19.01.2004 came to be issued by the respondent 3 herein containing the substance of imputations of misconduct together with statement of articles of charge, calling upon all the erring officials including the petitioner herein to submit their written statements of defence within ten days of the receipt of the memorandum while simultaneously vide order dated 19.01.2004 appointed one Shri S. Y. Singh, Deputy Commandant as an Inquiry Officer for enquiring into the said charges against the erring officials including the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 29.01.2004, whereafter the Inquiry Officer commenced the Inquiry on 27.02.2004 calling upon the erring officials including the petitioner herein to appear before him on or before 15.03.2004 on which date the erring officials including the petitioner herein came to be served with the preliminary inquiry report along with the documents annexed thereto, whereafter the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry against the erring officials including the petitioner herein and served a memo dated 27.02.2004 upon the erring officials asking them as to whether they plead guilty or not to the charges, in response to which 4 (four) erring officials, namely, Suresh Kumar, Rajinder Kumar & Balbir Chander including the petitioner herein objected to the holding of the inquiry by the said enquiry officer by laying a written representation, which came to be forwarded by the enquiry officer to the respondent 3 herein, being the Disciplinary Authority on 20.03.2004, whereafter the Disciplinary Authority appointed an interpreter, consequent to which said erring officials including the petitioner herein participated in the inquiry proceedings and during the course of said inquiry, 06 prosecution witnesses came to be examined on 29.03.2004, 30.03.2004 & 31.03.2004 besides relying upon 06 documents exhibited in support of the articles of charge, whereas the erring officials including the petitioner herein did not produce any defence witness, yet produced 09 documents in their support, whereafter after concluding the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer held all the 07 charges levelled against the erring officials including the petitioner herein and have been proved, whereupon the said inquiry report came to be forwarded by the erring officials to the Disciplinary Authority-respondent 3 herein on 03.09.2004, besides furnishing a copy thereof to the petitioner herein on 09.09.2004, whereafter the Disciplinary Authority served a memorandum of proposed punishment upon the petitioner on 27.12.2004 which came to be responded to by the petitioner herein on 18.01.2005, whereafter the respondent 3 herein-Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 22.01.2005 dismissing the petitioner from service, providing further there in the order that the petitioner shall have a right of appeal against the said order, whereupon an appeal came to be filed by the petitioner herein against the said order before the Appellate Authority being the Deputy Inspector General, SSB, which appeal came to be rejected on 06.05.2005. 3. 3. Aggrieved of the orders dated 22.01.2005 and 06.05.2005, the petitioner has maintained the instant petition on the following grounds:- “(a) That the orders impugned in the writ petition are violative of the legal, fundamental and statutory rights of the petitioner. The petitioner was one of the members of the team, which was entrusted to guard the BSNL building at Srinagar. On 18-11-2003 when the petitioner was on duty as Rear Sentry on the second floor of the building 2 Terrorists entered into the building by opening fire from the front gate of the building. The militants firstly opened fire on the CRPF personnel in front of the building then entered into the BSNL complex and entered the building. The Front Sentry namely Subash Chander opened fire but the militants with the help of darkness entered the building. The petitioner was a sentry on second floor and on the rear side became alert on his position. The other six officials including the Guard Commander and 2nd Guard Commander were in the Guard Room. They could not give any help to the petitioner. After the hearing of the fire shots, the whole area was cordoned off by the Army and Paramilitary forces. The officials who were in the Guard Rooms came out of the building and also the Front Sentry Sh. Subash Chander. The petitioner remained single in the said building till next day in the morning upto 2.30 A.M. when the petitioner was ordered by the Commandant to come out of the building from the top roof of the building with the help of ladder. During this process the weapon of the petitioner fell down which was recovered on the next day in a damaged condition. After the the petitioner was brought out of the building, the complex was blasted by the Army personnel resulting in killing of two militants and damage to the property. The personal weapon of the petitioner was also damaged in the said incident. A preliminary enquiry was held into the incident which even find the Guard Commander, Second Guard Commander and 4 constables namely Balbir Chander, Rajinder Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Stanzine Jemyange careless in their duties as they were not able to reach the rear Sentry. The personal weapon of the petitioner was also damaged in the said incident. A preliminary enquiry was held into the incident which even find the Guard Commander, Second Guard Commander and 4 constables namely Balbir Chander, Rajinder Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Stanzine Jemyange careless in their duties as they were not able to reach the rear Sentry. After the finding of the preliminary enquiry, a departmental enquiry was ordered and a charge sheet dated 19-1-2004 was served upon the whole group of 8 personnel on the said date. In terms of rule 14 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules 1965 when a charge sheet is served, the delinquent official is required to reply the said charge sheet within the time as given by the disciplinary authority. After the reply is submitted by the delinquent official, the reply is scrutinized by the disciplinary authority and in case of pleading not guilty the disciplinary authority can conduct enquiry himself or appoint enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry. The enquiry officer so appointed is supplied with complete material pertaining to the charges, who in turn conducts enquiry into the charges famed against the delinquent official. In the present case, the enquiry officer is also appointed on the same day i.e. 19-1-2004 without waiting for the reply of the petitioner and other personnel. This shows the mala fide intention of the respondents as they had already made up their mind to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner and other officials. The reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered properly by the disciplinary authority. The enquiry proceedings are illegal and bad in the eyes of law. (b) That the enquiry officer firstly issued notice to all the 8 personnel to appear before him by or before 15 Mar 2004 for preliminary hearing and when the petitioner alongwith other personally appeared before the enquiry officer and objected his appointment, the petitioner alongwith 3 personnel Ashwani Kumar (Petitioner), Rajinder Kumar, Balbir Chander and Suresh Kumar were ordered to report in the office of Commandant 7th Bn. Jammu. Against left over 4 personnel, the enquiry officer recorded the statement of witnesses on 29th March 2004, 30th March and 31st March 2004. Jammu. Against left over 4 personnel, the enquiry officer recorded the statement of witnesses on 29th March 2004, 30th March and 31st March 2004. The petitioner alongwith 3 other personnel who were deputed at Jammu were given another Show Cause Notice to appear before the enquiry officer on 14 May 2004 for preliminary hearing^ It is^ herein respectfully submitted that as per the rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, the first stage of the enquiry proceeding is hearing of the charges in the presence of the charged official, who is made to understand the charges leveled against the charged official and there-after the charged official is given clear 48 hours to go through the charges and to understand the charges leveled against him In the present case there is no hearing of the charges nor opportunity has been given to the petitioner to understand the charges. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer on 14-5-2004 and on the same day preliminary hearing is done against the petitioner and then the next date is fixed for recording evidence of the witnesses. The procedure adopted by the enquiry officer is illegal and, therefore, enquiry proceedings are liable to be set aside and consequently the order of termination. The next date was fixed on 24th May 2004 on which date no proceedings were conducted. The enquiry officer on 29th May 2004 handed over the copies of statement of the witnesses recorded by him at Srinagar to the petitioner. These statements, it is respectfully submitted, were recorded by the enquiry officer with respect-to the enquiry conducted against the 4 personnel who remained at Srinagar. The petitioner was asked to sign these statements. The petitioner objected that the witnesses have not been examined in his presence nor he has been afforded any opportunity of cross examine the witnesses. When these statements were handed-over to the petitioner on 29th May 2004, none of the witnesses were present and the enquiry officer had no answer to the objections raised by the petitioner in this behalf. The petitioner was forced to sign on the column^ all the papers, which is not the procedure prescribed under law. The petitioner was also forced to sign plain papers. The petitioner was forced to sign on the column^ all the papers, which is not the procedure prescribed under law. The petitioner was also forced to sign plain papers. The method adopted by the enquiry officer in conducting the enquiry proceedings is totally illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and is contrary to the provisions of law and, therefore, the enquiry proceedings are liable to be quashed and consequently the order of termination passed against the petitioner. The date fixed was 24 May 2004 on which date no proceedings is done and on 29 May 2004 the copies of the statement of witnesses recorded at Srinagar is handed-over to the petitioner. The petitioner objected and requested the enquiry officer for cross examination of the witnesses but the enquiry officer forced the petitioner to sign the statement. The perusal of the Statement of the witnesses would show that the statement was recorded in absence of the petitioner and the petitioner was forced to sign the documents. No witness was present on the said date as there statements had already been recorded at Srinagar and it was a mere formality to comply with the procedure as copies were supplied to the petitioner. The proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer are totally illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and, therefore, the orders impugned in the writ petition are liable to be quashed. ^ .The statements of witnesses were recorded at Srinagar. The written statements were brought by the enquiry officer at Jammu and asked the petitioner to sign the same. He also obtained signatures on plain papers. (c) That the findings of the-enquiry officer are totally unjustified and are based on no evidence. The enquiry report does not give any concrete finding of the charges leveled against the whole team. No evidence has been discussed in the enquiry report. The enquiry officer has given the enquiry report against all the 8 officials/personnel and all the charges have been proved. No reason or justification has been given by the enquiry officer in proving the charges and the finding of the enquiry officer is based on supposition and surmises. The charges are liable to be proved in a departmental enquiry against the officials/personnel but in the present case the enquiry officer has not cared to establish the charges and has given a composite finding on all the charges. The charges are liable to be proved in a departmental enquiry against the officials/personnel but in the present case the enquiry officer has not cared to establish the charges and has given a composite finding on all the charges. The finding of the enquiry officer is, therefore, totally unjustified, illegal and is contrary to the provisions of law. (d) That the orders impugned in the- writ petition are violative of principles of natural justice and is based on extraneous reasons and consideration. The preliminary enquiry held the Guard Commander, second Guard Commander and 4 Guards, excluding the petitioner liable for the negligence. The enquiry officer has not given finding on the charges leveled against the whole team. When the petitioner objected to the appointment of the enquiry officer and the procedure followed during the enquiry, die petitioner has been singled out and the punishment of dismissal of service has been awarded to the petitioner. Out of the 8 officials, it is the petitioner only, who has been dismissed from the service whereas the Front Sentry Subash Chander has been exonerated of the charges from whose side die militants entered into the BSNL Complex. The Guard Commander and Second Guard Commander have been given a punishment of one rank down whereas the other 4 personnel have been given 28 days Quarter Guard alongwith one hour drill. The petitioner is only person who has been dismissed from service. As stated in the preceding paragraph, it was the petitioner only, who remained in the building and came out of the building next day. The petitioner has been made scapegoat during the whole incident and has been given a major punishment of dismissal from the service on account of none of his fault. (e) That the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is totally illegal and is dis-proportionate. The petitioner has not committed any offence which can result to the dismissal of the services. It is only the petitioner who fought with the militants till the next day upto 2.30 a.m. when the petitioner was asked by the Commanding Officer to come down from the top. The petitioner has been given this major punishment for the reasons best known to the respondents. (f) That the petitioner has been discriminated. All the other personnel of the team have been given lesser punishment whereas the petitioner has been dismissed from the service. The petitioner has been given this major punishment for the reasons best known to the respondents. (f) That the petitioner has been discriminated. All the other personnel of the team have been given lesser punishment whereas the petitioner has been dismissed from the service. (g) That the procedure prescribed under the Act and the rules have not been followed, while conducting the enquiry proceedings and, therefore, the enquiry proceeding and consequent order of termination is bad in the eyes of law. (h) That the petitioner has left no other alternative efficacious remedy other than to approach this Hon'ble Court for redressal of his grievances. (i) That the petitioner has not filed any other writ petition, either in this Hon'ble Court or in any other Hon'ble Court of the country on the same subject matter.” 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents to the petition, wherein the petition is being opposed, inter alia, on the premise that none of the fundamental, legal and statutory rights of the petitioner have been violated by the respondents and that the petitioner came to be subjected to a departmental inquiry after holding of a preliminary inquiry qua the incident dated 18.11.2003 having happened during the performance of duty by the petitioner and that the departmental inquiry came to be conducted against the petitioner and other erring officials in accordance with the provisions of law including the principles of natural justice, which inquiry found the petitioner guilty of the charges resulting into passing of the order of the dismissal against the petitioner and upheld by the Appellate Authority as well upon an appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of dismissal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Mr. Ajay Abrol, learned appearing counsel for the petitioner while making his submissions in line with the contentions raised and grounds urged in the petition would submit that the respondents grossly faulted in the matter of holding inquiry against the petitioner, in that, the respondents though initiated the said inquiry in terms of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short “the Rules of 1965”), yet held the said inquiry under and in terms of Rule 27(c) of the Central Reserve Police Rules of 1955 (for short “the Rules of 1955”). Mr. Mr. Abrol would further submit that notwithstanding the said patent error committed by the respondents in conducting and holding the inquiry, the said inquiry was not even conducted in accordance with the Rule 27(c) of the Rules of 1955. On the contrary, Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing on behalf of the respondents would admit of the position that the inquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner herein under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965, however, same was conducted in terms of Rule 27(c) of the Rules of 1955 and that the said inquiry was conducted in tune with the said Rules of 1955. According to Mr. Sharma, the commencing of the inquiry under Rules of 1965 and thereafter conducting the same under Rule 27(c) of the Rules of 1955 got necessitated on account of the fact that the petitioner and other erring officials belong to SSB, a Paramilitary Force akin to the Central Reserve Police Force and said SSB did not have had the relevant rules for holding such an enquiry in place at that relevant point of time, as such, the provisions of Rule 27(c) of the Rules of 1955 came to be taken recourse to in the matter of holding the inquiry in question. 6. Perusal of the record tends to show that the respondent 3 herein while issuing memorandum of imputations of misconduct/articles of charge dated 19.01.2004 admittedly provided therein that inquiry under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965 read with Rule 27(c) of the Rules of 1955 is being proposed against the erring officials including the petitioner while appointing on the very same day, i.e., 19.01.2004, Shri S. Y. Singh, Deputy Commandant as an Inquiry Officer. 7. Perusal of the record further reveals that admittedly the erring officials including the petitioner herein objected to the holding of the inquiry by the nominated Inquiry Officer, whereupon an interpreter came to be appointed by the respondent 3 herein in terms of memorandum dated 20.03.2004, whereafter said erring officials including the petitioner herein participated in the inquiry proceedings conducted by the said Inquiry Officer without there being any objection or protest thereto by the said erring officials including the petitioner herein. 8. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 27(c) of the Rules of 1955 hereunder being relevant herein: “Rule 27. 8. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 27(c) of the Rules of 1955 hereunder being relevant herein: “Rule 27. Procedure for the award of punishments:- (a) …………….. (b) ……………. (c) The procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry shall be as follows:— (1) The substance of the accusation shall be reduced to the form of a written charge, which should be as precise as possible. The charge shall be read out to the accused and a copy of it given to him at least 48 hrs. before the commencement of the enquiry. (2) At the commencement of the enquiry the accused shall be asked to enter a plea of “Guilty” or “Not Guilty” after which evidence necessary to establish the charge shall be let in. The evidence shall be material to the charge and may either be oral or documentary, if oral; (i) it shall be direct; (ii) it shall be recorded by the Officer conducting the enquiry himself in the presence of the accused; (iii) the accused shall be allowed to cross examine the witnesses. (3) When documents are relied upon in support of the charge, they shall be put in evidence as exhibits and the accused shall, before he is called upon to make his defence, be allowed to inspect such exhibits. (4) The accused shall then be examined and his statement recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry. If the accused has pleaded guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he pleads “Not guilty”, he shall be required to file a written statement, and a list of such witnesses as he may wish to cite in his defence within such period, which shall in any case be not less than a fortnight, as the officer conducting enquiry may deem reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the enquiry on the expiry of the period allowed. (5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he produces any evidence the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record the evidence. (5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he produces any evidence the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record the evidence. If the officer conducting the enquiry considers that the evidence of any witness or any document which the accused wants to produce in his defence is not material to the issues involved in the case, he may refuse to call such witness or to allow such document to be produced in evidence, but in all such cases he must briefly record his reasons for considering the evidence inadmissible. When all relevant evidence has been brought on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. (6) If the Commandant has himself held the enquiry, he shall record his findings and pass orders where he has power to do so. If the enquiry has been held by any officer other than the Commandant, the officer conducting the enquiry shall forward his report together with the proceedings, to the Commandant, who shall record his findings and pass orders, where he has power to do so. [(cc) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule—- (i) where any penalty is imposed on a member of the Force on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the authority competent to impose the penalty is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or (iii) where [the Special Director-General or Additional Director heading zone or Director-General] is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any enquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the authority competent to impose the penalty may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit. (ccc) When a member of the Force has been tried and acquitted by a Criminal Court, he shall not be punished departmentally under this rule on the same charge or on a similar charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case, whether actually led or not, except with the prior sanction of the Inspector General.] (d) (1) Where two or more members of the Force, including those on deputation to the Force are concerned in any case, the Inspector-General [or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such members of the Force] may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding. Note .—Where in such a proceeding, the misconduct of a deputationist is to be dealt with, the consent of the disciplinary authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal shall be obtained for the taking of such a disciplinary action. (2) Such order shall specify—- (i) the authority which may function as the disciplinary for such a common proceeding; (ii) the penalties specified in the table of sub-rule (a) above which such disciplinary authority shall be competent to impose; (iii) whether such disciplinary authority shall hold the Departmental enquiry himself or may designate any other enquiry officer for that purpose; and (iv) that the enquiry shall be held in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (a) and sub-rule (c) .” A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule reveals that the same provides for a set procedure and mechanism for holding of an enquiry and though procedural in nature seemingly has been conceived in the interests of the person proceeded against, thus, assuming a mandatory character. 9. Reverting back to the case in hand, record of the inquiry reveals that the Inquiry Officer after recording the plea of not guilty expressed by the petitioner and other erring officials recorded the statements of 06 prosecution witnesses, namely, Insp/GD C. S. Dhami, HC/GD Shamsher Singh, HC/GD Harbans Lal, CT/GD Sanjeev Kumar, HC/GD Jeet Roy, CT/GD Tshering Toldon on 29.03.2004, 30.03.2004 & 31.03.2004 respectively. Perusal of the statements of the said witnesses tend to show that the Inquiry Officer after recording the statements of the said witnesses adopted a noval procedure by formulating questions on the basis of the said statements and consequently sought answers from the erring officials including the petitioner herein and thereafter have had the cross examination of the said witnesses conducted by adopting the same question answer procedure. 10. Further examination of the inquiry record also tends to show that the Inquiry Officer besides examining the aforesaid witnesses also examined 09 documents in support of the articles of charge as also 09 documents produced by the erring officials including the petitioner herein. A closer examination of the enquiry record demonstrates that the said documents of the prosecution relied upon by the Inquiry Officer during the court of Inquiry were never part of the memorandum of articles of charge and the said documents though exhibited during enquiry proceedings were never put for inspection of the petitioner, so much so, the Inquiry Officer did not also follow Sub-rule (3) & Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 27(c) of the Rules of 1955. 11. Further perusal of the record including the inquiry report reveals that the Disciplinary Authority respondent 3 herein while considering the enquiry report and the recommendations made therein has also overlooked the aforesaid mandate of Rule 27(c) of the Rules of 1955 and instead proceeded to pass the impugned order even overlooking the reply submitted to memorandum of proposed punishment dated 27.12.2004 by the petitioner herein, wherein glaring contradictions and shortcomings have had been pointed out by the petitioner herein in the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer in particular the material contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Record also shows that the Appellate Authority as well has acted in the matter in a casual manner while concurring with the conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority-respondent 3 herein. The respondents seemingly have proceeded in the matter in breach of the applicable rules having committed gross and patent illegality and perversity. Record also shows that the Appellate Authority as well has acted in the matter in a casual manner while concurring with the conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority-respondent 3 herein. The respondents seemingly have proceeded in the matter in breach of the applicable rules having committed gross and patent illegality and perversity. It is pertinent to note here that in the matter of holding of a departmental inquiry, law is no more res integra and stands settled that a departmental inquiry is quasi judicial in nature and an Inquiry Officer is in the position of an independent adjudicator and is obliged to act fairly, impartially, in good faith and without bias and that when a departmental inquiry is held against a Govt. servant, it cannot be treated as a casual exercise and such departmental proceedings cannot be conducted with a closed mind and that the rules of principles of natural justice are to be observed to ensure that the not only justice is done but is manifestly seem to be done with an aim that the Govt. servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/ removal from service. The aforesaid view has been expressed by the Apex Court in case titled as “Union of India and others Vs Ram Lakhan Sharma,” reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670 . 12. Insofar as scope of the interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the extent of judicial review thereof qua misconduct by an employee in service matters is concerned, the law stands settled by the Apex Court in a series of judgements including in a recent judgement titled as United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee reported in [(2022) 13 Supreme Court Cases 329] wherein at paragraph 21 has laid down as under: “…..Yet, from H.C. Goel onwards, this court has consistently ruled that where the findings of the disciplinary authority are not based on evidence, or based on a consideration of irrelevant material, or ignoring relevant material, are mala fide, or where the findings are perverse or such that they could not have been rendered by any reasonable person placed in like circumstances, the remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution are available, and intervention, warranted. For any court to ascertain if any findings were beyond the record (i.e., no evidence) or based on any irrelevant or extraneous factors, or by ignoring material evidence, necessarily some amount of scrutiny is necessary. A finding of “no evidence” or perversity, cannot be rendered sans such basic scrutiny of the materials, and the findings of the disciplinary authority….” The aforesaid view has also been reiterated by the Apex Court in case titled as Union of India v. Constable Sunil Kumar reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49 holding further that on the basis of perversity or irrationality qua the punishment of dismissal, there can be judicial review under Articles 226, 227 or under 32 of the Constitution. 13. Viewed thus, the only inescapable conclusion that could be drawn from above is that the impugned orders are not legally sustainable. 14. Considering the fact that the petitioner herein came to be dismissed from service in the year 2005 at the age of 33 years and that the instant petition is being decided now in the year 2024 after having been instituted in the year 2005, the petitioner must have had attained the age of more than 52 years, as such, it would be inappropriate now at this stage to direct holding of a fresh inquiry in the matter against the petitioner herein, though ordinarily a fresh inquiry in the matter would be warranted. 15. Thus, under these circumstances, the petition, accordingly, is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed as a consequence whereof the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service and to extend him all benefits to which he would be entitled thereto except the salary for the period the petitioner remained out of service consequent to the order of dismissal dated 28.08.2004. 16. Disposed of accordingly.