ORDER : T.M.NADAF, J. Though these writ petitions are listed for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.21358/2021 is applicant in Application Nos.4946 and 4947/2021, the petitioner in W.P.No.21372/2021 is applicant in Application Nos.4938 and 4939/2021, the petitioner in W.P.No.21605/2021 is the applicant in Application Nos.4942 and 4943/2021, the petitioner in W.P.No.21620/2021 is the applicant in Application Nos.4936 and 4937/2021, the petitioner in W.P.No.21647/2021 is the applicant in Application Nos.4944 and 4945/2021, the petitioner in W.P.No.22455/2021 is applicant in Application Nos.4934 and 4935/2021 and the petitioner in W.P.No.22545/2021 is applicant in Application Nos.4940 and 4941/2021. 3. All the applications stated supra are considered together and dismissed by a common order dated 18.11.2021 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (‘the Tribunal’, for short), challenged in these writ petitions. 4. The petitioner in W.P.No.21358/2021 – Sri.Devaraju, working as Survey Supervisor preferred Application Nos.4946 and 4947/2021 before the Tribunal for the following reliefs:- “a) CALL for records from the Respondent pertaining to the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 (Annexure - A20) as well as impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 (Annexure - A21); b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ADM/15011/100/2021 issued by the Respondent (Annexure-A20) and the impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR / ADM-15011 / 100 /2021 passed by the Respondent (Annexure - A21), in so far as posting the Applicant as Survey Superintendent (Executive), office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Sringeri is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity; c) PASS any other Order including the cost of this Application, in the interest of justice and equity.” 5. The petitioner in W.P.No.21372/2021 – Sri.M.S.Abhinandan Kumar, working as Survey Supervisor preferred Application Nos.4938 and 4939/2021 before the Tribunal for the following reliefs:- “a) CALL for records from the Respondent pertaining to the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 (Annexure- A22) as well as impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 (Annexure- A23); b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ ADM/15011/100/2021 issued by the Respondent (Annexure - A22) and the impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ADM-15011/100/2021 passed by the Respondent (Annexure A23), in so far as posting the Applicant as Survey Supervisor, Office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bellary is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity; c) PASS any other Order including the cost of this Application, in the interest of justice and equity.” 6. The petitioner in W.P.No.21605/2021 – Sri.Toufiq Ahmed Shariff G.H., working as Surveyor preferred Application Nos.4942 and 4943/2021 before the Tribunal for the following reliefs:- “a) CALL for records from the Respondent pertaining to the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 (Annexure- A21) as well as impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 (Annexure- A22); b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ ADM/15011/100/2021 issued by the Respondent (Annexure - A21) and the impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ADM15011/100/2021 passed by the Respondent (Annexure A22), in so far as posting the Applicant as Surveyor, Office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Yadagiri is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity; c) PASS any other Order including the cost of this Application, in the interest of justice and equity.” 7. The petitioner in W.P.No.21620/2021 – Sri.H.N.Krishnappa, working as Survey Supervisor preferred Application Nos.4936 and 4937/2021 before the Tribunal for the following reliefs:- “a) CALL for records from the Respondent pertaining to the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 (Annexure- A21) as well as impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 (Annexure- A22); b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ ADM/15011/100/2021 issued by the Respondent (Annexure – A21) and the impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ADM15011/100/2021 passed by the Respondent (Annexure A22), in so far as posting the Applicant as Surveyor, Office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Jevargi is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity; c) PASS any other Order including the cost of this Application, in the interest of justice and equity.” 8. The petitioner in W.P.No.21647/2021 –Sri.C.N.Girish, working as Surveyor preferred Application Nos.4944 and 4945/2021 before the Tribunal for the following reliefs:- “a) CALL for records from the Respondent pertaining to the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 (Annexure- A21) as well as impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 (Annexure- A22); b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ ADM/15011/100/2021 issued by the Respondent (Annexure - A 21) and the impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ADM15011/100/2021 passed by the Respondent (Annexure A22), in so far as posting the Applicant as Surveyor, Office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Afzalpur is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity; c) PASS any other Order including the cost of this Application, in the interest of justice and equity.” 9. The petitioner in W.P.No.22455/2021 – Sri.M.C.Shivaramu, working as Survey Superintendent preferred Application Nos.4934 and 4935/2021 before the Tribunal for the following reliefs:- “a) CALL for records from the Respondent pertaining to the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 (Annexure- A20) as well as impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 (Annexure- A21); b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ ADM/15011/100/2021 issued by the Respondent (Annexure - A20) and the impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ADM15011/100/2021 passed by the respondent (Annexure A21), in so far as posting the Applicant as Superintendent, Office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Surpura is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity; c) PASS any other Order including the cost of this Application, in the interest of justice and equity.” 10. The petitioner in W.P.No.22545/2021 – Sri.Srinivas Achar, working as Surveyor Superintendent preferred Application Nos.4940 and 4941/2021 before the Tribunal for the following reliefs:- “a) CALL for records from the Respondent pertaining to the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 (Annexure- A20) as well as impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 (Annexure- A21); b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned Articles of Charge dated 05/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ ADM/15011/100/2021 issued by the Respondent (Annexure - A20) and the impugned Order dated 07/10/2021 bearing No. SSLR/ADM15011/100/2021 passed by the Respondent (Annexure A21), in so far as posting the Applicant as Surveyor, Office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Yadagiri is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity; c) PASS any other Order including the cost of this Application, in the interest of justice and equity.” 11. Since the Articles of Charges issued against all the petitioners individually commonly dated 05.10.2021 so also posting orders in respect of all the petitioners commonly dated 07.10.2021, are involving same facts and questions of law as the genesis for the said orders is the report being No.SSLR/11025/693/2021-22 dated 17.09.2021 submitted by the common respondent to the Government. They are taken up together for disposal by this common order in order to avoid repetition of facts. 12. Heard Sri.Sathish K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.21358/2021 and 21372/2021, Sri.Nagarajulu Naidu G., learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.21605/2021, W.P.No.21620/2021 and W.P.No.21647/2021 and Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayathri, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.22455/2021 and 22545/2021 and Sri.S.R.Khamroz Khan, learned AGA for common respondent in all the petitions. 13. 12. Heard Sri.Sathish K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.21358/2021 and 21372/2021, Sri.Nagarajulu Naidu G., learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.21605/2021, W.P.No.21620/2021 and W.P.No.21647/2021 and Sri.Raghavendra G. Gayathri, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.22455/2021 and 22545/2021 and Sri.S.R.Khamroz Khan, learned AGA for common respondent in all the petitions. 13. A brief outline of facts common in all the petitions as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:- The main cause for initiation of departmental enquiry is rooted in the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.51871-51872/2016 and the contempt proceedings initiated thereon in CCC No.2437/2018 . As could be seen from the facts common to all the writ petitions, the State Government during the year 1960-61, granted Gomala land in Sy.No.55, Kuduregeri Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, measuring 3 acres each in the name of one Sri.Krishnappa and Smt.Subbamma. Subsequently, Saguvali Chit was issued in their names. On 03.02.1971, Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, approved Akarband and assigned New Sy.No.145, totally measuring 7 acres including 3 acres 26 guntas of ‘A’ Kharab and Sy.No.146, totally measuring 6 acres 36 guntas including 3 acres and 2 guntas of ‘A’ Kharab. Under a registered sale deed dated 13.08.2003, the entire property in Sy.Nos.145 and 146 totally measuring 13 acres 36 guntas was purchased by one Sri.Karnati Venkateshwar Rao. 14. It is claimed by him that on the basis of registered sale deed, revenue entries had been effected in his name. After purchase, the lands were also converted from agricultural to non-agricultural/residential purposes. The owner of the said lands made an application before the jurisdictional Tahsildar requesting him to issue revenue Tippani copies of both the survey numbers supra, who by an endorsement dated 26.08.2015 had rejected the application on the ground that there is no such land revenue Tippani available in his office. On receiving such endorsement, another application came to be filed by the owner of the property supra on 25.02.2016. This time, requesting conduct of a survey and issuance of land revenue Tippani. As there is no response from the Tahsildar, the owner of the lands supra approached this Court in W.P.Nos.51871-51872/2016 . This Court by its order dated 09.01.2017, disposed of the writ petitions on the submission of learned AGA that, action would be taken on the representation in accordance with law. As there is no response from the Tahsildar, the owner of the lands supra approached this Court in W.P.Nos.51871-51872/2016 . This Court by its order dated 09.01.2017, disposed of the writ petitions on the submission of learned AGA that, action would be taken on the representation in accordance with law. This Court on recording the said submission, disposed of the matter for conduct of survey and issuance of land revenue Tippani within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The operative portion of the order in the writ petition supra is stated at paragraphs No.4 and 5, which reads as follows:- “4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that action in accordance with law will be taken on the representation/application submitted by the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, I find that the Tahsildar is required to carry out necessary survey and/or have the survey conducted with the help of concerned officers including the Assistant Director of Land Records to fix the boundary assigning sub-numbers, if necessary and issue land revenue tippani and other documents in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.” 15. For short of compliance of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition supra, the petitioner therein filed a contempt in CCC No.2437/2018 . It was then the opinion of the Joint Director of Land Records was sought by the revenue authorities. The Joint Director of Land Records has rendered his opinion, directing to verify the genuineness of the grant and thereafter, reconstruct the survey records and conduct of fresh survey in terms of the order passed by this Court in the above writ petition. The Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk took decision to reconstruct the survey records in respect of land in Sy.Nos.145 and 146, situated at Kuduregeri village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru Additional North Taluk, Bengaluru on 19.03.2020 and permission was sought from the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District Bengaluru. Upon that, the Deputy Commissioner has narrated the entire events right from the grant as well as conversion of the land in question from agricultural to non-agricultural/residential purpose and passed an order on 09.02.2021 directing the Deputy Director of Land Records to reconstruct the Tippani. Upon that, the Deputy Commissioner has narrated the entire events right from the grant as well as conversion of the land in question from agricultural to non-agricultural/residential purpose and passed an order on 09.02.2021 directing the Deputy Director of Land Records to reconstruct the Tippani. Accordingly, Assistant Director of Land Records in compliance with the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner sought permission from the Deputy Director of Land Records on 23.07.2021 to reconstruct the records which has been accorded by the Deputy Director of the Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District on 23.08.2021, to reconstruct the Tippani. 16. The Division Bench hearing the contempt petition on 09.08.2021 directed to reconstruct the Tippani in compliance of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.51871-872/2016 imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- for delayed compliance and adjourned the matter on 24.08.2021 as a final chance. All the petitioners herein who are all sub-ordinates to Assistant Director of Land Records under his direction, as well as the direction of the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Director of Land Records participated in the process of reconstruction of Tippani pertaining to the lands stated supra and submitted the record to their superiors, which was placed before this Court in contempt proceedings. Pursuant to the reconstruction of Tippani, the contempt proceedings initiated by the owner Sri.Karnati Venkateshwar Rao was dropped on 24.08.2021. 17. Subsequent to this, the respondent herein submitted a report dated 17.09.2021 to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Survey Settlement) that the petitioners herein have committed offences under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘Act of 1964’, for short) encumbering the land belonging to the Government, reconstructed Tippani, and recommended for keeping the petitioners under suspension also for initiation of departmental enquiry so also criminal prosecution. 18. Based on the said report, the Joint Director of Land Records registered a compliant on 22.09.2021 before the Halsurgate Gate Police station against the petitioners and others in Crime No.184/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 466, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. Subsequently, the respondent herein issued Articles of Charges to the petitioners on 05.10.2021 that the petitioners have failed to supervise properly and committed serious errors in preparing the Tippani without even perusing the sale deeds and obtaining permission of the committee and with other imputations. Subsequently, the respondent herein issued Articles of Charges to the petitioners on 05.10.2021 that the petitioners have failed to supervise properly and committed serious errors in preparing the Tippani without even perusing the sale deeds and obtaining permission of the committee and with other imputations. Thereafter, the respondent had passed another order dated 07.10.2021 revoking the suspension order against the petitioners and posted the petitioners to the places stated in the said order. It is these two common dated orders were called in question in the applications supra by the petitioners before the Tribunal and sought to quash the orders. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have preferred W.P.No.17984/2021 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for records from the Office of the respondent and to quash the impugned report dated 17.09.2021, impugned complaint dated 22.09.2021, impugned first information report dated 23.09.2021 and other orders. The writ petition seeking to quash the orders supra was ordered to be connected with writ petition No.17822/2021, W.P.No.18881/2021 and were pending consideration as on the date of disposal of applications before the Tribunal. 19. The Tribunal upon consideration of rival contentions placed by the petitioners and the respondent, dismissed the applications by a common order dated 18.11.2021, relegating the petitioners to submit their reply to the show cause notice issued accompanying the Articles of Charges, place the records relied by them before the Enquiry Officer and take all the contentions urged before the Tribunal. It is this common order in all the applications supra is called in question in individual writ petitions supra by the petitioners. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners jointly submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.17984/2021 calling in question the report dated 17.09.2021 which is the foundation/genesis for initiation of criminal proceedings as well as departmental enquiry which commenced with issuance of Articles of Charges, came to be allowed quashing the said report as well as the FIR registered thereon. In view of quashing the report which is the foundation for issuance of Articles of Charges dated 05.10.2021 and the posting order dated 07.10.2021, the continuation of the said departmental enquiry as well as the order of posting are illegal and liable to be quashed as non est. 21. In view of quashing the report which is the foundation for issuance of Articles of Charges dated 05.10.2021 and the posting order dated 07.10.2021, the continuation of the said departmental enquiry as well as the order of posting are illegal and liable to be quashed as non est. 21. Learned AGA is not disputing the disposal of writ petition filed by the petitioners supra resulting in quashing of the report which is the genesis for initiation of departmental enquiry commencing with issuance of Articles of charges and posting order. He has further submitted that the State has preferred W.A.No.482/2025 against the order in W.P.No.17984/2021 . However, he has fairly submitted that the said writ appeal is not maintainable as the writ petition is filed under Article 226 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In view of the said non- maintainability, he submits that the State intends to file Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court calling in question the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17984/2021 . 22. The learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.17822/2021 c/w 17984/2021 and 18881/2021 by order dated 21.10.2022 allowed the petitions quashing the proceedings initiated pursuant to letter dated 17.09.2021 and report dated 17.09.2021 including FIR dated 23.09.2021. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioners in the said writ petitions were only implementing the order passed by this Court as contempt petition was being heard wherein implementation of the order had been sought by the owner of the land. As such, no fault would be found with the act of the petitioners. 23. One more reason for the learned Single Judge to come to the said conclusion is the report filed by the Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (‘BMTF’, for short) on similar compliant registered before it wherein, the BMTF on an inspection and detailed enquiry found that the land belonging to Sri.Karnati Venkateshwar Rao is a private land and does not indicate to be a kharab land belonging to the Government by any means. The reasons for quashing the report dated 17.09.2021 submitted by respondent herein to the Government with the directions for holding departmental enquiry and initiation of criminal proceedings are stated by the learned Single Judge in paragraph Nos.6 to 12, which reads as under:- "6. The reasons for quashing the report dated 17.09.2021 submitted by respondent herein to the Government with the directions for holding departmental enquiry and initiation of criminal proceedings are stated by the learned Single Judge in paragraph Nos.6 to 12, which reads as under:- "6. On 17-09-2021 the 2 nd respondent/Commissioner, Department of Survey Settlement and Land Records submits a report to the Secretary, Department of Revenue that the petitioner and others have committed offence under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘the Act’ for short) encumbering the land belonging to Government and reconstructed tippani and also recommended criminal prosecution against the petitioner and others. Based on the said report, the Joint Director of Land Records registers a complaint on 22-09-2021 and the complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.184 of 2021 against the petitioner and others. It is the registration of crime that is called in question in the subject petition. 7. The learned senior counsel Sri M.S.Bhagwat appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that the very complaint registered against the petitioner is one without jurisdiction, as the petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Section 192A of the Act and the Government order mandates that whoever be the accused, notice of 15 days shall be given to the encroacher and Section 192A being a non-cognizable offence, no proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner. He would further contend that the petitioner is now sought to be hauled up for obeying the orders of this Court, as this Court had directed to consider the representation and conduct survey. On initiation of contempt proceedings order had to be passed and the order had been passed through every channel and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for obeying the order of this Court. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would contend that the petitioner and others while seeking to implement the order passed by this Court have acted in a manner where several Government lands are shown to be private properties and have caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.50/- crores and, therefore, the proceeding so initiated against the petitioner was one that was necessary and is to be taken to its logical end. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that it is not only Section 192A of the Act, but all other offences are also added to the array of allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, it is necessary for the petitioner to come out clean from the proceedings. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 10. The afore-narrated link in the chain of events or the sequence of events is not in dispute. The genesis of this issue is from the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 51871-51872 of 2016. This Court recording the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner therein disposed of the writ petition on the say of the learned Additional Government Advocate by observing as follows: “4. Learned Additional Government advocate submits that action in accordance with law will be taken on the representation/application submitted by the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I find that the Tahsildar is required to carry out necessary survey and/or have the survey conducted with the help of concerned officers including the Assistant Director of Land Records to fix the boundary assigning sub-numbers, if necessary and issue land revenue tippani and other documents in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.” After the disposal of the writ petitions on 9-01-2017 no action was taken by the State for close to two years. On 24-01-2019 seeking to comply with the order passed by this Court a direction was given by the Joint Director of Land Records to the Tahsildar to reconstruct the survey records and issue land revenue tippani to that effect. After the direction, the Tahsildar issued an official memorandum on 19- 03-2020 directing conduct of survey in terms of the order passed by this Court and also sought to re- construct the survey records by drawing up a tippani. The Official Memorandum sought permission from the hands of the Deputy Commissioner. In the meantime, contempt proceedings were initiated by the owner who had in his favour an order passed by this Court disposing of the writ petition with particular direction (supra). The Official Memorandum sought permission from the hands of the Deputy Commissioner. In the meantime, contempt proceedings were initiated by the owner who had in his favour an order passed by this Court disposing of the writ petition with particular direction (supra). In the teeth of the contempt and the order that was to be passed, the Assistant Director of Land Records again seeks permission from the Deputy Director of Land Records to reconstruct the survey records who by communication dated 23.07.2021 permits the said reconstruction by observing as follows: “…. …. …. …. This was preceded by a permission of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The permission so granted on 9-02-2021 reads as follows: “…. …. …. After the aforesaid proceedings, the Division Bench hears the contempt petition on 9-08-2021 and imposes costs of Rs.5,000/- in addition to directing compliance with the order passed by this Court as afore-quoted. The product of all these proceedings of Court and the communications between concerned officers was the order dated 23-08-2021 by which compliance was made to the order passed by this Court. The order reads as follows: Noticing that the order has been complied with, contempt proceedings in C.C.C.No.2437 of 2018 came to be dropped by an order of the Division Bench on 24-08-2021. After conclusion of said proceedings, the Commissioner/2 nd respondent herein prepares a report and submits it to the State/1 st respondent herein that criminal prosecution (supra) is to be initiated against the officers i.e., Deputy Director of Land Records and the Assistant Director of Land Records for granting 7 acres 36 guntas of Government land to private parties which resulted in projected loss of Rs.50/- crores. Pursuant to the communication from the Commissioner to the Secretary, Department of Revenue, a complaint came to be registered on 22-09-2021. 11. A perusal at the complaint would indicate that the action taken by the petitioner in terms of what this Court directed in the writ petition, contempt petition and the orders of the Deputy Commissioner are sought to be given a colour of crime. Petitioners were only implementing the order passed by the Court as the contempt petition was being heard wherein implementation of the order had been sought by the owner of the land, no fault could be found with the act of the petitioners. Petitioners were only implementing the order passed by the Court as the contempt petition was being heard wherein implementation of the order had been sought by the owner of the land, no fault could be found with the act of the petitioners. The allegation in the complaint and the justification in support of such allegation in the statement of objections are that the land belongs to Government. It is a kharab land and it was registered in favour of land owner. A similar complaint had been registered before the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (‘BMTF’ for short). The BMTF after conduct of an inspection and detailed inquiry has submitted its report in 2018 holding that the land belonging to Karnati Venkateshwar Rao is a private land and does not indicate to be a kharab land belonging to the Government by any means. It becomes germane to notice the report of the BMTF and it reads as follows: “…. …. …. (Emphasis added) A perusal at the report of BMTF would indicate that a detailed inquiry was conducted after thorough examination of records and statement of witnesses. Therefore, that would be an added circumstance in favour of the petitioners wherein the petitioners have only acted in terms of what is available in the record. No doubt it has been done in a hurry, but the hurry that is generated in the case at hand was because of contempt that was pending against the officers including the petitioner. Therefore, no fault can be found with the act of the petitioner. If further proceedings are permitted to continue in the case at hand against the petitioner, it would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of law, on a solitary fact that it would become a proceeding to consider whether the petitioner has in fact acted in furtherance of the direction of this Court or otherwise. If the direction of the Court has been implemented not only by the petitioner but the other officers as well, it cannot be said that for implementing the orders passed by this Court that too in the teeth of contempt, they would become open to registration of a complaint for performing their duty. Not once but twice reports were sought and those reports indicated and vindicated what the petitioners have done. Therefore, permitting further proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice. 12. Not once but twice reports were sought and those reports indicated and vindicated what the petitioners have done. Therefore, permitting further proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice. 12. The facts, grounds and the issue that arises for consideration in the companion writ petitions are similar to W.P.No.17822 of 2021. Therefore, they are not separately noticed. Since what is observed above would completely cover to the companion writ WP No. 21605 of 2021 HC-KAR AND 4 OTHERS petitions, the following order is passed in all the writ petitions: ORDER i. Writ Petitions are allowed. ii. Impugned proceedings initiated pursuant to letter dated 17-09-2021 and report dated 17- 09-2021 including FIR dated 23-09-2021 stand quashed. Consequently, pending applications also stand disposed." 24. In view of quashing of the report which is the foundation for holding departmental enquiry against the petitioners herein resulting in issuance of Articles of Charges and subsequent order of posting does not survive for any consideration, without expressing anything on merits of the case, the writ petitions required to be disposed off quashing the common order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we pass the following:- ORDER i. The writ petitions filed calling in question the common order dated 18.11.2021 are allowed. Common order passed by the Tribunal dated 18.11.2021 in all applications supra, is quashed. ii. Consequently, applications filed by the petitioners in Application Nos.4946 and 4947/2021, 4938 and 4939/2021, 4942 and 4943/2021, 4936 and 4937/2021, 4944 and 4945/2021, 4934 and 4935/2021 and 4940 and 4941/2021 are allowed quashing the Articles of Charges dated 05.10.2021 common in all the applications and the order dated 07.10.2021 common in all the applications in so far as postings of the petitioners are concerned, are also quashed. iii. Liberty is reserved to the Government to seek for revival of the order, subject to the result in the Special Leave Petition intended to be filed by the State before the Hon’ble Apex Court. iv. No order as to costs.