S. B. Pd. Singh, J. – Heard the parties. 2. The appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.06.2018 passed in C.W.J.C No. 24188 of 2013. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant’s late father was posted as Junior Engineer in Triveni Canal Construction Sub-division, Kaurewa, Camp Sikta under Triveni Canal Construction Division, Narkatiyaganj during the period 2003-05. He remained absent from duty in unauthorized manner since 28.8.2003. During this period, he neither executed any Government work nor he performed election duty during Lok Sabha Election, 2004 which is in utter violation of the order issued by the competent authority. The delinquent employee was placed under suspension by Memo No. 404 dated 30.04.2005 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) in contemplation of proceedings against him on the ground of unauthorized absence from the duty since 28.8.2013. The departmental proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 55 of the CCA Rules, 1930 vide resolution dated 24.5.2005, which is Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. A copy of the said resolution along with the charges and evidence were duly communicated to the employee. However, neither he gave his joining at the headquarter in compliance of the direction of the Executive Engineer contained in letter dated 25.4.2005 nor did he submit his written defence before the Inquiry Officer in spite of valid service of notice even at his permanent address. Thereafter, respondents communicated the notice in a widely circulated newspaper on 26.6.2005 and 25.10.2005 which is evident from Annexure-B series to the counter affidavit. Charge memo dated 23.5.2005 is also enclosed along with Annexure-B series. In spite of adequate notices, petitioner's late father did not turn up to give his joining at the headquarter and continued to ignore the suspension order as also the charges were framed against him. On 30.12.2005, the Inquiry Officer submitted the Inquiry report holding the charges proved against the delinquent. A copy of the Inquiry report has been annexed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. On 25.06.2010, second show-cause notice was issued to the delinquent which was replied by him on 22.07.2010 and ultimately, vide Memo No. 1535 dated 11.10.2020, the delinquent was dismissed from the service. 4. A copy of the Inquiry report has been annexed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. On 25.06.2010, second show-cause notice was issued to the delinquent which was replied by him on 22.07.2010 and ultimately, vide Memo No. 1535 dated 11.10.2020, the delinquent was dismissed from the service. 4. From perusal of the Enquiry Report, it appears that Inquiry Officer hurriedly proceeded to conclude the departmental inquiry within few days and in a flimsy manner, the late father of the appellant was dismissed from the service. 5. In this regard, it is necessary to reproduce the dismissal order dated 11.10.2010. 4. From perusal of the Enquiry Report, it appears that Inquiry Officer hurriedly proceeded to conclude the departmental inquiry within few days and in a flimsy manner, the late father of the appellant was dismissed from the service. 5. In this regard, it is necessary to reproduce the dismissal order dated 11.10.2010. fcgkj ljdkj ty lalkèku foHkkx vkns'k vkŒlŒ&22@fuŒflŒ ¼eksfrŒ½&8&1@2005@189@iVuk] fnukad&11&10&10 Jh fot; dqekj flUgk] rRdkyhu duh; vfHk;ark] f=os.kh ugj fuekZ.k voj ize.My] dkSjsok] f'kŒ&fldjk ¼f=os.kh ugj fuekZ.k ize.My ujdfV;kxat ds vèkhu) dks LosPNk ls vukfèkÑr :i ls eq[;ky; ls vuqifLFkr jgus ljdkjh dk;Z dk fu"iknu ugha djus yksd lHkk pquko dk;Z 2004 esa Hkkx ugha ysuk rFkk vuqifLFkfr fooj.kh fucafèkr Mkd ls Hkstus ,oa fu;a=.kh inkfèkdkjh ds vkns'k dk vuqikyu ugha djus vkfn izFke n`"V;k izekf.kr vkjksiksa ds fy, foHkkxh; vkns'k laŒ&37 lg Kkikad 404, fnukad&30-04-05 }kjk fuyafcr djrs gq, muds fo:) flfoy lfoZlst ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ :Yl] 1930 ds fu;e&55 ds rgr foHkkxh; ladYi Kkikad&518, fnukad&24-5-05 }kjk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh xbZA fuyacu vofèk ds fy, fuèkkZfjr eq[;ky; ^^funs'kd] ty izcaèku ,oa flapkbZ miyfCèk lqèkkj funs'kky;] iVuk** esa Jh flUgk }kjk ;ksxnku ugha fn;k x;k vkSj u gh lapkyu inkfèkdkjh ds le{k viuk dksbZ fyf[kr c;ku gh fn;k x;kA bl chp lanfHkZr vkns'k ,oa i=ksa dk rfeyk Jh flUgk ds LFkkbZ irs ij djkus dk iz;kl fu"Qy gksus ij nks ckj Øe'k% fnŒ&26-06-2005 rFkk fnŒ&25-10-2005 dks lekpkj i=ksa esa Hkh lwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZA fQj Hkh Jh flUgk }kjk eq[;ky; esa ;ksxnku ugha fn;k x;kA Jh flUgk }kjk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr ugha gksus ds ifjisz{; esa Jh flUgk ds fo:) vkjksi dks Lor% izekf.kr gksus dk mYys[k djrs gq, tk¡p inkfèkdkjh }kjk vxzsrj dkjZokbZ foHkkx }kjk fd;s tkus dk vuqjksèk fd;k x;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa vkjksiksa dks Lor% izekf.kr ekurs gq, D;ksa ugha lsok ls c[kkZLr dj fn;k tk;] bl fcUnq ij Jh flUgk ls foHkkxh; i=kad 960, fnukad 25-6-10 }kjk f}rh; dkj.k i`PNk dh xbZA Jh flUgk }kjk fn;s x;s f}rh; dkj.k i`PNk dk mÙkj fnukad 22-7-10 dh leh{kk ,oa tk¡p inkfèkdkjh }kjk lefiZr tk¡p izfrosnu ftlesa vkjksi Lor% izekf.kr gksus dk mYys[k gS] dh leh{kk foHkkx }kjk dh xbZ lE;d leh{kksijkUr fuEu rF; ik;s x;s%& ¼1½ Jh flUgk }kjk u rks fuèkkZfjr eq[;ky; esa ;ksxnku gh fd;k x;k ,oa u gh foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa Jh flUgk mifLFkr gq, tcfd blds fy, muds fuokl LFkku ds irs ij fucafèkr Mkd ls lwpuk Hksth xbZ ,oa izsl foKfIr ds }kjk nks ckj nSfud lekpkj i= esa lwpuk Hkh izdkf'kr dh xbZA ¼2½ Jh flUgk dks fuyacu dh tkudkjh izkIr gksus ds i'pkr Hkh muds }kjk fuyacu vofèk esa fuèkkZfjr eq[;ky; esa vktrd ;ksxnku ugha fd;k x;k gSA ¼3½ vkjksfir inkfèkdkjh foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr ugha gq, ftlds QyLo:i tk¡p inkfèkdkjh }kjk miyCèk lk{;ksa@vfHkys[kksa ds vkèkkj ij tk¡p izfrosnu lefiZr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa vkjksiksa ds Lor% izekf.kr gksus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA ¼4½ mi;qZDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa Jh flUgk ds fo:) fuEu vkjksi izekf.kr ik;k x;k%& ¼d½ foHkkxh; ,oa mPpkfèkdkfj;ksa ds vkns'k dh tkucw>dj vogsyuk djukA ¼[k½ eq[;ky; ,oa dk;ZLFky ls yxkrkj vuqifLFkr jguk ,oa fcuk dk;Z fd;s gh osru Hkqxrku ds fy, mPpkfèkdkfj;ksa ij vuko';d ncko cukukA ¼x½ eq[;ky; ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k Jh flUgk] dŒvŒ }kjk yksd lHkk pquko] 2004 dk pquko dk;Z gsrq izfrfu;qfDr i= dks u rks izkIr fd;k x;k vkSj u fuokZpu dk;Z esa gh Hkkx fy;k x;kA Jh flUgk }kjk fuyacu vkns'k fnŒ&30-04-05 ds ckn ls vktrd eq[;ky; esa ;ksxnku ugha nsus ds dkj.k budh vukfèkÑr vuqifLFkfr yxkrkj ik¡p o"kks± ls Hkh vfèkd dh gks pqdh gS blfy, fcgkj lsok lafgrk ds fu;e&76 ds izkoèkku ds rgr Jh flUgk c[kkZLrxh ds naM ds ik=k Hkh gks pqds gSaA mi;qZDr izekf.kr vkjksiksa ds fy, Jh flUgk dks lsok ls c[kkZLr djus dk fu.kZ; foHkkx }kjk fy;k x;k gSA vr% mDr foHkkxh; fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa Jh fot; dqekj flUgk] rRdkyhu duh; vfHk;Urk] f=os.kh ugj fuekZ.k voj ize.My] dkSjsok] f'kŒ&fldVk ¼vkbZŒMhŒtsŒ&4505½ dks vkns'k fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ls lsok ls c[kkZLr (dismiss) fd;k tkrk gSA ¼nsoh jtd½ vfHk;Urk izeq[k ¼eè;½ Kkikad&1535 fnukad&11-10-10 izfrfyfi%&lHkh la;qDr lfpo] ¼izcaèku½@lHkh mi lfpo ¼izcaèku½@lHkh voj lfpo] ¼izcaèku½ ty lalkèku foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk@ vfHk;Urk izeq[k] ty lalkèku foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk@lHkh eq[; vfHk;Urk] ty lalkèku foHkkx@ funs'kd] ty izcaèku ,oa flapkbZ miyfCèk lqèkkj funs'kky;] iVuk@vèkh{k.k vfHk;Urk frjgqr ugj vapy] jDlkSy@dk;Zikyd vfHk;Urk] f=os.kh ugj ize.My] ujdfV;kxat@izHkkjh ok;ksMkVk@dEI;wVj dks"kkax@izcaèku lwpuk iz.kkyh dks"kkax] ty lalkèku foHkkx@iz'kk[kk inkfèkdkjh&7] 9] 12 ,oa 22 ty lalkèku foHkkx@Jh fot; dqekj flUgk] lqiq= Jh jke pUnz izlkn] xzkñ ,oa eksñ&nqXXy] Hkk;k&jQhxat] vkSjaxkckn dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA ¼nsoh jtd½ vfHk;Urk izeq[k ¼eè;½ 6. The late father of the appellant joined as Junior Engineer in the year 1979 and thereafter the services of delinquent employee Late Vijay Kumar Sinha was declared substantive on 13th of January, 1987, first time bound promotion was granted to him on 17.05.1993 and up-till 31.03.2003, no complaint was alleged against his services. On 24.02.2002, he was transferred Triveniganj Canal and his joining was accepted on 9th April, 2003. The late father of the appellant, thereafter, filed C.W.J.C No. 1807 of 2001 for acceptance of his joining and salary/payment was withheld by the department and it was allowed on 07.07.2004, directing the concerned authority to pay arrear amount of Rs. 52,496/- to the delinquent employee, keeping in view the fact that no departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The late father of the appellant thereafter filed M.J.C. No. 470 of 2005 for incomplete compliance of the order of Hon’ble High Court and the respondent Executive Engineer in the aforesaid contempt petition issued order for payment of Rs. 3,95,850/- on 18th March, 2005 and the late father of the appellant was directed to give his joining at the Headquarter by a letter dated 25.04.2005. The late father of the appellant was thereafter suspended on 30th of April, 2005 and vide Memo No. 1535 dated 11.10.2020, he was dismissed from the service. 7. All these facts go to show that since father of the appellant had filed writ petition against the authority concerned, regarding whom, as a retaliatory measure and taking vindictive approach, he was suspended from the service, and without hearing him the Inquiry Officer has found him guilty and ex parte order of major punishment (dismissal) was passed against late father of the appellant. 8. Taking note of these infirmities, it is evident that late father of the appellant has not been provided ample opportunity of adducing evidence before the Inquiring Officer. It is to be noted that major penalty of removal from service has been imposed. In such circumstance the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority/Revisional Authority should have examined as to whether the delinquent employee has been provided ample opportunity of adducing evidence and cross-examining the witnesses. These issues have not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. These are the legal issues insofar as adducing evidence and non providing ample opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. These issues have not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. These are the legal issues insofar as adducing evidence and non providing ample opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umesh reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563 elaborately considered under what circumstances writ court can interfere insofar as judicial review of disciplinary proceedings. Paragraph-22 of the aforesaid Judgment reads as under: – “22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not reappreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. [State of Karnataka vs. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 547; Union of India vs. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806; B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80; R.S. Saini vs. State of Punjab, (1999) 8 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1424 and CISF vs. Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 310].” Underline Supplied. 9. The appellant’s case would stand fit into the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case of State of Karnataka (cited supra). On this count appellant has made out a case so as to interfere with the dismissal order dated 25.06.2010 and so also order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.06.2018 passed in CWJC No. 24188 of 2013. 10. On this count appellant has made out a case so as to interfere with the dismissal order dated 25.06.2010 and so also order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.06.2018 passed in CWJC No. 24188 of 2013. 10. At this stage, we have noticed that in the event of quashing of the removal order what would be the consequence in view of the fact that late father of the appellant is not entitled for reinstatement for the reason that if he was alive and in service he would have attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 25.04.2011, therefore there is no point of reinstatement. Further, it is not a case of remand to the disciplinary authority after 20 years, having regard to the fact that the Inquiring Officer has committed error in passing ex parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of adducing evidence to the late father of the appellant in support of his case. On this point the appellant has made out a case. 11. Be that as it may, having regard to the charges levelled against the delinquent, it is shocking to conscious of this Court insofar as imposition of penalty of removal from service for the reason that the charges were not proved in the manner to the extent that he was not provided sufficient opportunity to adduce the evidence and cross-examine the witnesses produced against him. These are all mandatory requirement in a Departmental Inquiry. However, having regard to the charge of unauthorized absence for prolonged time, we proceed to modify the penalty of removal from service dated 25.06.2010 to the extent of imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 25.06.2010. Resultantly, late father of appellant is entitled to consequential service and monetary benefits from the date of his appointment as Junior Engineer till 25.06.2010, the date on which removal order was passed and it is modified by us to the compulsory retirement. 12. For the aforementioned intervening period, late father of appellant is entitled to consequential monetary benefits and the same shall be calculated and disbursed. 12. For the aforementioned intervening period, late father of appellant is entitled to consequential monetary benefits and the same shall be calculated and disbursed. If the post held by the him is pensionable post, in that event, the concerned authority is hereby directed to fix the pension w.e.f 25.06.2010 and calculate and disburse arrears of pension to the appellant till 15.01.2024, as mother of the present appellant, who was rightful recipient of the family pension of her husband, has already died on 15.01.2024. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.06.2018 passed in C.W.J.C No. 24188 of 2013 is set aside. 14. The L.P.A is allowed in part.