JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs : A. For the quashing of the office order contained in Memo No. 203/D dated 28.06.2018 (Annexure-5) passed by the Respondent No.2 against the petitioner in Memorandum against the departmental proceeding no. 26/2017 as this order is illegal, void ab initio arbitrary. B. For the quashing of the office order contained in Memo No. 777/S.H. dated 03.04.2018 (Annexure-4) passed by the Respondent no.3 against the petitioner in Appeal against the departmental proceeding no. 26/2017 as this order is illegal, void ab-initio arbitrary. C. To quash the entire disciplinary proceeding of 26/2017 including office order no.110/2018 dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent no.4 against the petitioner as this order are illegal, void ab-initio, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. D. To reinstate the petitioner with all the consequential and promotional benefits arising out in his service career. 2. Briefly stated, a departmental proceeding was initiated against this petitioner for which charge-sheet was issued (Annexure-1) and after the enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer, enquiry report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority holding the charge to be proved and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority after going through the enquiry report and the records, imposed the punishment of dismissal. 3. Amongst the other grounds on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this is a peculiar case where the Inquiry Officer himself assumed the charge of Presenting Officer and in essence, he became prosecutor apart from Umpire for which he was duly appointed. In other words, in the instant case, there was no Presenting Officer, who has been appointed. He further draws attention of the Court towards Annexure-1, which is charge-sheet and the enquiry report, which is Annexure-2 and submits that nowhere there is a reference of Presenting Officer and even the Inquiry Officer has not given any indication that Presenting Officer has been appointed. 4. He further submits that normally in the charge-sheet itself, the name of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer are indicated and if not, a letter with regard to appointment of Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer is issued to the delinquent. 4. He further submits that normally in the charge-sheet itself, the name of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer are indicated and if not, a letter with regard to appointment of Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer is issued to the delinquent. However, in the instant case; neither a separate letter with regard to appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer has been issued and/or served to the petitioner, nor there is any reference of the Presenting Officer; as such, it is against the settled principle of service jurisprudence that Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently, cannot act as a Prosecutor. As such, on this score alone, the impugned order of punishment is vitiated. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that there is no document on record in order to rebut the aforesaid contention. However, relying upon the counter-affidavit, he submits that the charge was very grave and proper evidence was led and several witnesses were examined; as such, only on the question that there was no Presenting Officer, the entire proceeding cannot be held to be vitiated. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; without going into the merits of the case; this Court inclines to interfere with the impugned orders only on the question that there was no Presenting Officer in the instant case and the Inquiry Officer himself assumed the charge of Presenting Officer and he himself examined witnesses, etc. The law in this regard is very clear that Inquiry Officer, who has to act independently, cannot act as a Prosecutor. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma , [ (2018) 7 SCC 670 ] relevant para of which is extracted herein below: “36. Thus, the question as to whether the Enquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of a particular case. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer himself led the examination- in-chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer himself led the examination- in-chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court further held that the Enquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already been noticed from paras 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High Court giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012. 37. The High Court having come to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor also, the capacity of independent adjudicator was lost while adversely affecting his independent role of adjudicator. In the circumstances, the principle of bias shall come into play and the High Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders by giving liberty to the appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. We make it clear that our observations as made above are in the facts of the present cases. 38. In result, all the appeals are dismissed subject to the liberty as granted by the High Court that it shall be open for the appellants to proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage as directed by the High Court and it shall be open for the appellant to decide on arrear pay and allowances of the respondents.” 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that there was no Presenting Officer in the entire proceeding and the Inquiry Officer himself assumed the charge of Presenting Officer and proved the charge; as such, there is no hesitation in holding that the principle of natural justice has not been complied with. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment has categorically held that the Inquiry Officer is supposed to act independently in an enquiry and not as a Prosecutor. 8. On this score alone, this writ application succeeds and the impugned orders dated 28.06.2018 (Annexure-5), dated 03.04.2018 (Annexure-4), dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure-3), are hereby, quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith or in any case not beyond the period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. On this score alone, this writ application succeeds and the impugned orders dated 28.06.2018 (Annexure-5), dated 03.04.2018 (Annexure-4), dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure-3), are hereby, quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith or in any case not beyond the period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. However, the Respondents would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceeding in accordance with law, if so advised. 10. So far as claim of the petitioner for back wages is concerned, he shall file a separate application before the respondents along with statement that he has not worked anywhere and pursuant thereto, the respondent shall take an informed decision on the question of back wages. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.