1 2026:CGHC:5624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10280 of 2025 1 - Lakhan Lal Jaiswal S/o Late Puran Lal Jaiswal Aged About 31 Years R/o Jail Colony, G-Block Room No. 09, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Jail And Correctional Services, Head Quarter, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 31/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) ] “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari for set-aside/quash 2 the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure P-2). 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner who was holding the post of Prahari (Prison Guard) has been deputed for taking one prisoner namely Roshan Chandrakar, S/o. Homendra Chandrakar to the hospital on 02.08.2024 for his check-up at Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur (Mekahara Hospital). After getting the prisoner examined in the hospital, he returned back along with prisoner in the jail at about 4.50 PM. Based on some video footage uploaded in social media, petitioner was issued charge-memo levelling two charges against him firstly that on 02.08.2024, petitioner was sent along with prisoner Roshan Chandrakar to hospital, however from video uploaded in the social media, it is appearing that petitioner is found unauthorizedly roaming along with family members of prisoner in a restaurant situated at Fafadih, Raipur and secondly that on 02.08.2024, prisoner was handed over to petitioner for taking him to hospital at 9.25 AM and with inordinate delay he along with prisoner return to jail at 4.50 PM. Petitioner leaving the prisoner in the hospital was found roaming with the family members of the prisoner according to the video uploaded in the social media, which was a negligent act on the part of petitioner and there could be a chance of absconding of prisoner. He contended that the aforementioned both charges are vague, there is no specific mention of time, name of restaurant and so 3 called family members of prisoner. With regard to delay, he submits that petitioner was assigned duty to take prisoner to the Government Hospital i.e. Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, where after examining prisoner, doctor suggested some test and was also advised that he should wait for the outcome of the test/report and if required, the prisoner/patient may require inpatient treatment. After lapse of long time, when report was not handed over and it was informed to petitioner that there may be further delay for producing report, petitioner thereafter returned back. There is no other reasons for delay in returning to jail along with prisoner. Petitioner has also submitted photocopy of screen shot of mobile number of his friend to prove that at that relevant point of time, petitioner received urgent phone call, therefore, after duty hours he visited the place at which his friend called petitioner. He next contended that in enquiry proceedings, petitioner was put material questions by the Enquiry Officer and thereby the Enquiry Officer had acted as a prosector, therefore, the enquiry itself is vitiated and petitioner cannot be subjected to punishment based on the said report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. He also contended that respondents authorities/department has not produced any evidence to show that petitioner has left the hospital much earlier but have returned to jail premises only at 4.50 PM nor any other documentary or oral evidence in this regard, therefore, said charge remained unproved. In the enquiry report, it is mentioned that video is got examined, however, no report is handed over to petitioner, more so when the basis of enquiry is video uploaded in the social media, which may also be concocted one. He submits that in the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order passed by the Appellate 4 Authority as also by the Disciplinary Authority be set-aside. He lastly contended that the order imposing punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the allegations/charges levelled against petitioner. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1986 SC 995, in case of Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 277, in case of Union of India Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, reported in AIR 2018 SC 4860, in case of General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank Vs. B.S.N. Prasad, reported in AIR 2025 SC (CIVIL) 667, in case of Dr. Gajendra Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR ONLINE 2022 SC 990, judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of M.M. Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, in WP No. 1828 of 2003 decided on 10.01.2018, and decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Ramsagar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, in W.A. No. 172 of 2025, decided on 11.03.2025. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that charges have been very specifically pleaded in charge memo specifying the date as also the place i.e. restaurant of Fafadih, where petitioner was found coming out from one of the restaurant. He contended that petitioner, who took the patient/prisoner to the hospital at 9.45 in absence of any severe sufferings of prisoner, without there being any examination report, has returned back after long delay only at 4.50 PM, however, he do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that employees of hospital is not examined in the departmental enquiry or any document like correspondence or other medical document is 5 submitted before the enquiry officer to prove the allegation of delay on part of petitioner in returning back to the jail. The order impugned passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of removal from services, which is upheld by the Appellate Authority is in accordance with law which does not call for any interference. He places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Constable Sunil Kumar, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 622. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner in his argument has raised grounds for consideration of this Court firstly that charges levelled against petitioner is vague as it is not specific and definite. Secondly, Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor because he put cross-question to the delinquent employee during course of his examination as witness and thirdly the punishment imposed upon petitioner to be disproportionate. He has also argued that charges levelled against petitioner could not be proved as the charges could not be substantiated by admissible evidence. 6. So far as the first ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner about the charges to be not specific and definite, therefore, it is vague is concerned, petitioner is working as Constable, who was subjected to departmental enquiry by issuing charge memo to him. Authorities had framed two charges against petitioner as is reflecting from the enquiry report available in the writ petition, which reads as under :- 6 “1. दिाሪक 02.08.2024 क वि चाराधी ाሪ बं राशाሪ चान्ቖኋकरा विता होमेन्ቖኋ चान्ቖኋकरा क जेल चिचाविकत्साधिधीकरा क रामेशाሪसारा डॉ!. भी मेरा अम्बंडॉकरा अ्ቢताल मे& जेचा करााሪ होता ቦኍ लखाሪ लल जेयसा ल ्ቚहोरा क मे्ቛ ता भीजे गय था, िሗक/ता साशल मे विडॉय मे& ्ቚसारिराता वि विडॉय ቇኌ2ल क अाሪसारा ्ቚहोरा उ2ता वि चाराधी ाሪ बं क रिराजेाሪ4 क साथा अ्ቚधिधीक5 ता रू सा ्ቛ्ቛडॉ हो ቇኌ7ता रास्टोरा&टो रा घू;मेता दिखई  राहो हो=। 2. दिाሪक 02.08.2024 क मेाሪ गटो राजिजेस्टोरा क अाሪसारा वि चाराधी ाሪ बं राशाሪ चान्ቖኋकरा विता होमेन्ቖኋ चान्ቖኋकरा क ्ቚता@ 9:25 बंजे ቦኍ लखाሪ लल जेयसा ल ्ቚहोरा कA अभिभीराቌኋ मे& भीजे गय, राता उाሪक ቛኋरा बं क अत्यता वि लबं सा साय 4:50 बंजे जेल खिखल कराय गय होF। अाሪ अभिभीराቌኋधी ाሪ बं क मेकहोरा अ्ቢताल मे& छोड़करा बं क रिराजेाሪ4 क साथा घू;मेता हुआ ्ቚहोरा ቦኍ लखाሪ लल जेयसा ल क वि विडॉय साशल मे विडॉय मे& ्ቚसारिराता विकय गय होF, ्ቚहोरा क उ2ता लरा हो ; क क5 त्य सा बं ्ቛरारा कA घूटोाሪ भी हो साकता था ।" 7. Contents of Charge-No.1 mentions that on 02.08.2024, petitioner was assigned duty to take one prisoner in jail namely Roshan Chandrakar, S/o. Homendra Chandrakar to the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur for his examination but according to video clip uploaded in social media, petitioner was found roaming with family members of the prisoner in restaurant. There is no date and time of video uploaded in the social media and further there is no mention of name of persons, relatives of prisoner/accused and restaurant. 8. Even if petitioner was issued charge memo by department in the process of conducting departmental enquiry against him it is for the authorities conducting departmental enquiry against delinquent employee to see that charge memo to be served to the delinquent employee should be clear, specific and definite. If the details of the incident, which formed basis of charges is not given, no enquiry can sustain on vague charges as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 7 in case of Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society, (2013) 6 SCC 515. In case at hand in Charge No.1 though allegation is that petitioner was found to be roaming in restaurant with family members of prisoner to whom petitioner was taken to hospital, there is no mention of name of restaurant at which, he was found roaming, its time and further that name of family members of the prisoner. Time and date in the facts of the case is important so as to provide an opportunity of proper defence to delinquent employees to prove his place of presence at that relevant point of time, in which respondents department utterly failed. One of the facet of departmental enquiry is that employee facing departmental enquiry should know specific and definite charges against him so as to have an opportunity to defend himself from the charges. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, charge levelled against petitioner to the extent as discussed above in Charge No.1, in the opinion of this Court appears to be not specific and definite. 9. The second charge against petitioner is that petitioner took prisoner for his examination in the hospital i.e. Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur at about 9.25 AM from jail premises and returned to the jail at 4.50 PM and thereby petitioner returned jail with inordinate delay and further that petitioner left the prisoner in hospital and was found roaming along with family members of prisoner and video recording of which is also uploaded in the social media. The said negligence of petitioner may had an occasion of prisoner flee away or abscond. 8 10. To prove the above charges levelled against petitioner department has examined only one witness i.e. Feku Ram Dhruw, Chief Warder who in his evidence as is discussed by the Enquiry Officer in its report is that on 02.08.2024 he deployed petitioner to take prisoner suffering with illness for their checkup to hospital. Petitioner was engaged in security of Roshan Chandrakar for bringing back him to jail. He also mentioned about date and time of leaving petitioner along with prisoner from jail and his returning back at about 4.50 PM. He has not made any other statement in his evidence. Prosecutor/department when had issued notice levelling charge about misconduct of being employee of police department and working as Warder, that he did not returned back to jail from hospital within time, then it is for the employer to prove that petitioner left the hospital at or about particular time. No other evidence is brought in record by the department by either examining employees of hospital more so when petitioner has specifically denied the allegation of leaving the patient in the hospital and went outside and was found in company of parents of prisoner in restaurant. This charge is levelled against petitioner only on the basis of some video footage uploaded in social media. The employer of delinquent employee had not brought any specific evidence to prove that video clip which is relied upon by Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority of the relevant date i.e. 02.08.2024 to prove that during duty hours, petitioner had visited the restaurant, which was important in view of the nature of allegation levelled against petitioner. 11. True it is that proof of allegation in departmental enquiry and in criminal case are entirely different. In earlier nature of proof required to prove the allegation is beyond reasonable doubt and in later proof of 9 allegation is based on preponderance of probabilities. Even if the allegation in the departmental enquiry proceedings is to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities than also nature of evidence brought in by prosecutor/department is to be of such nature that an ordinary man should be able to accept the allegations to be probable in view of the evidence brought on record when consequence of decision is major penalty, may be termination of service. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sher Bahadur v. Union of India, (2002) 7 SCC 142 observed thus :- “7. It may be observed that the expression “sufficiency of evidence” postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence, however voluminous it may be, which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, is no evidence in law. The mere fact that the enquiry officer has noted in his report, “in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry”, would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence. Though, the disciplinary authority cited one witness Shri R.A. Vashist, Ex. CVI/Northern Railway, New Delhi, in support of the charges, he was not examined. Regarding documentary evidence, Ext. P-1, referred to in the enquiry report and adverted to by the High Court, is the order of appointment of the appellant which is a neutral fact. The enquiry officer examined the charged officer but nothing is elicited to connect him with the charge. The statement of the appellant recorded by the enquiry officer shows no more than his working earlier to his re-engagement during the period between May 10 1978 and November 1979 in different phases. Indeed, his statement was not relied upon by the enquiry officer. The finding of the enquiry officer that in view of the oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence, the charge against the appellant for securing the fraudulent appointment letter duly signed by the said APO (Const.) was proved, is, in the light of the above discussion, erroneous. In our view, this is clearly a case of finding the appellant guilty of charge without having any evidence to link the appellant with the alleged misconduct. The High Court did not consider this aspect in its proper perspective as such the judgment and order of the High Court and the order of the disciplinary authority, under challenge, cannot be sustained, they are accordingly set aside.” 13. In case of Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. It is sufficient to establish the charge by evidence, albeit not by mere conjecture or surmises, acting upon which reasonably and objectively a reasonable man could uphold the charge. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. H.C. Goel, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 16 has observed thus :- “22. We are not prepared to accept this contention. Mala fide exercise of power can be attacked independently on the ground that it is mala, fide. Such an exercise of power is always liable to be quashed on the main ground that it is not a bona fide exercise of power. But we are not prepared to hold that if mala fide are not alleged and bona fides are assumed in favour of the appellant, its conclusion on a question of fact cannot be successfully challenged even if it is manifest 11 that there is no evidence to support it. The two infirmities are separate and distinct though, conceivably, in some cases both may be present. There may be cases of no evidence even where the Government is acting bona fide; the said infirmity may also exist where the Government is acting mala fide and in that case, the conclusion of the Government not supported by any evidence may be the result of mala fides but that does not mean that if it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorari will not issue without further proof of mala fides. That is why we are prepared to accept the learned Attorney-General's argument that since no mala fides are alleged against the appellant in the present case, no writ of certiorari can be issued in favour of the respondent. 23. That takes us to the merits of the respondent's contention that the conclusion of the appellant that the third charge framed against the respondent had been proved, is based on no evidence. The learned Attorney-General has stressed before us that in dealing with this question, we ought to bear in mind the fact that the appellant is acting with the determination to root out corruption, and so, if it is shown that the view taken by the appellant is a reasonably possible view this Court should not sit in appeal over that decision and seek to decide whether this Court would have taken the same view or not. This contention is no doubt absolutely sound. The only test which we can legitimately apply in dealing with this part of the respondent's case is, is there any evidence on which a finding can be made against the respondent that Charge No. 3 was proved against him? In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the 12 sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence illegally the impugned conclusion follows or not. Applying this test, we are inclined to hold that the respondent's grievance in well founded, because, in our opinion, the finding which is implicit is the appellant's order dismissing the respondent that charge number 3 is proved against him is based on no evidence.” 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 observed that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion with the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of court. Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority, it does not re-appreciate the evidence and held thus :- “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an 13 inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of 14 evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 1 LLJ 38] this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 16. In case of Moni Shankar v. Union of India, (2008) 3 SCC 484, Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom and observed thus :- “17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the Department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of 15 proportionality. (See State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava [(2006) 3 SCC 276 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 521] and Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn. [(2007) 4 SCC 669 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 68] )” 17. Even in cases of departmental enquiry proceedings, proof and suspicion are distinct, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chatter, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 and observed thus :- “34. In Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC 995, this Court held that even in a domestic enquiry, the charge must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest against that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair-play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. 35. In view of the above, law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjunctures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record 16 reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct. 18. The allegation/charge against petitioner that he was found roaming when he was on duty with prisoner, leaving prisoner in hospital based on video footage, the Enquiry Officer has not discussed anything as to how the video footage is proved. In the report of the Enquiry Officer, there is no mention on what basis video clip placed, before the Enquiry Officer, is found to be proved when no person in this regard has been examined. Even there is no discussion about getting the video footage to be proved in accordance with provisions of Evidence Act. Disciplinary Authority also have not made any discussion in this regard. The department except examining Chief Warder of Jail, who released the prisoner along with petitioner, who was on duty for getting medical examination of prisoner, no other witness is examined. There is no discussion with regard to the date and time of which videography was done and by whom and there is no discussion by Enquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority as to on what basis only the video footage can be accepted to be admissible evidence in the facts of the case to prove the charges levelled against petitioner delinquent employee. 19. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court if the facts of the case at hand is to be considered, it is apparent from the charges framed against petitioner delinquent employee that he was subjected to departmental enquiry only on the basis of some video footage/video clip uploaded in the social media and petitioner was found coming out from restaurant and behind him with considerable distance stated to be some family members of the prisoner are noted to be coming out from the said restaurant. There is 17 no specific and definite charge against petitioner that the said video footage is of particular date and particular time so as to held delinquent employee that he committed misconduct of leaving prisoner in hospital and roaming around. So as to held guilty petitioner, the connecting evidence is very important which is missing in this case as no ordinary man can connect petitioner with charge that video footage is of particular date and also of the time when he was on duty and took one prisoner to hospital more so when no evidence is brought on record by employer in this regard. I say so because employer/department has examined only one witness, who was employee posted at that relevant point of time in jail witness to releasing prisoner along with petitioner for hospital. He was not the witness of seeing petitioner roaming outside restaurant. 20. So far as the second charge that petitioner returned back to jail from hospital along with accused with inordinate delay is concerned, without any evidence that petitioner had not waited in hospital for report of prisoner taken by him to hospital, which defence is taken by him in reply to the show cause notice is a plausible one. Department has not examined in evidence or nor brought any documentary evidence that there was no necessity and requirement of patient (prisoner) for his stay in the hospital after 2 PM. 21. In the aforementioned facts of the case though this Court is not unmindful of the scope of judicial review to be limited in cases of departmental enquiry proceedings, however, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions that interference is permissible when punishment is without any evidence I am of the view 18 that punishment imposed upon petitioner is without any evidence, therefore, punishment is not sustainable. 22. For the foregoing discussions made here-in-above this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 06.08.2025 and (Annexure P-2) dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also by the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service, however, in the facts of the case, petitioner would not be entitled for any back wages but for the continuance of service for all purposes. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram