JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. In the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order/judgment dated 09.04.2025 passed in O.A No. OA/51/00444/2020 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Bench at Ranchi) whereby and whereunder Original Application filed by the respondents has been allowed and the learned Tribunal has been pleased to quash and set aside order dated 13.11.2020 calling the applicants to appear in the Departmental Enquiry in respect of Charge Sheet dated 29.11.2016 and further direction was given to grant all consequential benefits to the applicants as per the rules within a periods of three months from the date of this order which is absolutely perverse both on law and facts. And/or Issue such other writ(s) /order(S)/Rule(s)/Direction(S) as your lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case for doing substantial justice to the Petitioners.” 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petitions which are enumerated from the pleadings of the Original Applications reads as under: (i) The applicants (respondents herein) have been initially appointed a Casual Labour in between 1985 to 1988 and they were granted Temporary Status with effect from 09.03.1998 as per the directive of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as referred in the same Office Order in which the name of the applicants find place. It is stated that subsequently they have been regularized against the post of Regular Majdoor with effect from 06.02.2002 which is Permanent Group-“D” post under Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. (ii) While the applicants were working under Department, the Respondents (Petitioner herein) have issued order dated 20.01.1999 whereby the said order granting temporary status, has been kept in abeyance without any rhyme and reason. (ii) While the applicants were working under Department, the Respondents (Petitioner herein) have issued order dated 20.01.1999 whereby the said order granting temporary status, has been kept in abeyance without any rhyme and reason. (iii) Thereafter the applicants have filed one Original Application being Original Application No.144 of 1999 challenging the said order dated 20.01.1999 which was allowed on 29.11.2001 whereby the said Order dated 20.01.1999 cancelling / keeping in abeyance the Temporary Status granted to the Applicants has been set aside and the Respondents have been directed to reinstate the Applicants with liberty to enquire into the allegations of submitting forged certificates after giving appropriate opportunity to participate in the Enquiry and to take appropriate action in the light of Enquiry Report in accordance with law and in compliance thereof, the Applicants have been reinstated in service and subsequently the Respondents have issued one Letter dated 07.01.2002 directing the Applicants to submit their work diary and accordingly the Applicants have submitted their Work Diary on 16.01.2002 under clear receipt and thereafter they were reinstated in the service vide Order dated 25.01.2002 and thereafter the Respondents have conducted verification with their Work Diary which were found correct and genuine. (iv) It is further relevant to submit and state here that the Respondents herein have thereafter constituted Departmental Screening Committee (DPC) who met on 30.04.2002 and recommended for regularization and in compliance thereto the Respondents have issued Office Order dated 11.07.2002 whereby and whereunder the Applicants have been regularized as Regular Majdoor i.e. against Group-"D" Post with effect from 06.02.2002 unconditionally in which the name of Applicants finds place. (v) Further, it is very relevant to submit here that in spite of the proper verification of documents and regularization order as referred to above, the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Jharkhand Circle has issued one Letter dated 31.12.2001 to TDM, Dumka to constitute one Enquiry Committee to enquire about the truth with respect to the Genuineness of the initial appointment of Applicants as Casual Labour and thereafter the TDM, Dumka has constituted Three Men Committee who conducted detailed enquiry in the matter and submitted their Report on 12.07.2002 holding that "Thus it is proved from the above fact and finding that the appointment of all 12 TSMs cannot be categorized as false appointment. Followed by the finding of enquiry committee report Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted on comprising of Sri R. Sahu, TDM, Dumka cum-Chairman, Sri M. Singh, DE (P) Deoghar, Member and Sri P.P. Sah, DE (A&P) 0/0 TDM, Dumka, Member. The DPC scrutinized the relevant records of all the 12 TSMs and recommended to be regularized as RM with effect from 06.02.2002. Based on the Enquiry Committee report all the TSMs were informed vide DE (A&P) 0/0 TDM, Dumka Letter No. E-71/ CAT Judgment Order / Pat/2001-02/16 to 27 dated 08.07.2002 for record verification. Further Shri P.P. Sah, DE (A&P)- officials were regularized against vacant posts w.e.f. 06.02.2002." (vi) After a lapse of 03 years, the Respondents have constituted another Committee for making enquiry on the same issue as per the said Order passed in the said Original Application No. 144 of 1999. (vii) It is stated that the Chairman of the new Committee has issued one Letter dated 15.10.2005 directing the Applicants/Respondents to furnish required papers and in compliance thereto the Applicants/Respondents have appeared before the said Committee on 28.10.2005 with required papers which can be seen from the proceeding dated 28.10.2005 signed by the Members. It is stated that thereafter the Competent Authority, i.e., CGMT has issued direction for closing for stopping the enquiry and in compliance there to, the TDM, Dumka has stopped the Enquiry on 02.03.2006. (viii) The Applicants/Respondents while working continuously since the date of their regularization up to 2010, they were deprived of their due promotions to the post of Telephone Mechanic whereas their juniors have been granted with the said promotional benefit which compel them to file various Original Applications for redressal of their grievances vide Original Application No. 838 of 2010, Original Application No. 347 of 2012, Original Application No. 783 of 2013, Original Application No. 157 of 2013, Original Application No. 158 of 2013, Original Application No. 71 of 2014 and Original Application No. 226 of 2014 which were allowed on 24.03.2015, 06.05.2015 and 08.01.2015 respectively in which it has been held that the Temporary Status granted to the Applicants vide Order dated 08.03.1998, regularization of applicants against Group-"D" Posts vide Order dated 08.07.2002 are quite legal and the Applicants are entitled to get the promotion to the post of Telephone Mechanic, now Telecom Technician from the date of their juniors. (ix) The respondents/petitioners in anguish, misinterpreted the order of the learned Tribunal passed in O.A No.158 of 2013, and have issued termination order dated 28.05.2015 against which the applicants have filed cases including Original Application No.430 of 2015 in which this Hon’ble Court has stayed the termination order on 09.06.2015. (x) Thereafter, on the same facts and allegation respondents have issued Charge Memorandum dated 29.12.2016 after more than 25 years from the date of the appointment then the Applicants had filed Original Application No. 051/00335 of 2017 and Original Application No. 051/00132 of 2017. (xi) After hearing the parties, the Original Application No. 051/00335 of 2017 was allowed on 01.08.2017 and the said Charge Sheet dated 29.12.2016 was quashed against which the Respondents/Petitioners preferred writ petition before Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand vide W.P(S). No.5032 of 2017 wherein Judgement / Order passed in said Original Application No.051/00335 of 2017 was upheld by Hon’ble High Court as evident from paragraph No.20 of the Order dated 17.01.2018. (xii) The Respondents being aggrieved with the said order of High Court of Jharkhand, preferred Special Leave to petition (Civil) No.29394 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but the same has also been dismissed on 02.11.2018. (xiii) Similar to the above on 11.04.2018 in Original Application No.051/00132 of 2017 order was passed in which direction was passed to the Respondents to conduct a comprehensive Enquiry and initiate action against the Senior Officials guilty of omission and commission which has perpetuated the alleged fraud. (xiv) The Respondents were granted mandatory six months’ time for doing the same and till such action and punishment imposed against the Senior Officials and in the meanwhile the said Charge Sheet dated 29.12.2016 has been kept in abeyance with further direction that if aforesaid Enquiry and follow-up action is not taken against Senior Officials within six months the Charge Memorandum dated 29.12.2016 is deemed to be quashed and set aside. (xv) It is stated that the Enquiry against the Senior Officials has not been concluded within six months. (xv) It is stated that the Enquiry against the Senior Officials has not been concluded within six months. (xvi) In the meanwhile, the Respondent No.3 has issued orders dated 02.01.2019 against Sri Raj Kumar Yadav and Sri Dilip Kumar, both applicant No.5 and 6 in OA No.335 of 2017 and OA No.132 of 2017 for appearing in the departmental enquiry against the same charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 which has already been set aside by this Hon'ble Tribunal and also by Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi wherein their lordships have been pleased to grant liberty of enquiry against said two persons, i.e., Raj Kumar Yadav and Dilip Kumar with respect to their educational certificate and not with respect to their alleged forged documents. In this regard it is most respectfully submitted that said two persons have filed a case before Hon'ble Tribunal vide OA No.58 of 2019 in which Hon'ble Tribunal has initially granted stay of the departmental proceeding on 16.01.2019 and finally allowed the OA on 22.01.2020. (xvii) That in spite of specific order so passed by Hon'ble Tribunal, the same respondent No.3 has issued letter dated 31.07.2019 directing the applicants to appear in the departmental proceeding against the same charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 against which applicants have submitted reply on 09.08.2019 enclosing the said orders requesting for dropping the proceeding but again the date has been fixed on 30.12.2019, 16.01.2020 which has been replied by applicants and thereafter the proceeding was adjourned on 05.02.2020 without any date in view of order dated 22.01.2020. (xviii)In the meantime, the said respondent No.3 has issued order on 13.11.2020 directing the applicants to appear in the departmental enquiry on 02.12.2020 and 03.12.2020 respectively against the same charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 otherwise ex-party enquiry will be held and no further adjournment will be granted which is in fact contemptuous. In this regard it is most humbly submitted that any case, the Respondents cannot proceed with the Departmental Proceeding against the Applicants also in the same manner as has been held by Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.58 of 2020 in which one Sri Dilip Kumar was also applicant No.6 with the applicants in OA No.132 of 2017. In this regard it is most humbly submitted that any case, the Respondents cannot proceed with the Departmental Proceeding against the Applicants also in the same manner as has been held by Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.58 of 2020 in which one Sri Dilip Kumar was also applicant No.6 with the applicants in OA No.132 of 2017. It is once reiterated that the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand has given liberty to the Respondent-BSNL to conduct a Disciplinary Inquiry against said two applicants with respect to Educational Qualification and not for the allegation levelled in the Charge Memorandum dated 29.12.2016 which has already been set aside, therefore, the Respondents cannot proceed against the Applicants on the basis of a Charge Sheet procuring appointment on the basis of forged Experience Certificate which has already been set aside by this Hon'ble Court. (xix) In view of the above facts, it shows that the impugned action of the Respondents including Respondent No.3 is not only contemptuous, arbitrary but also contrary to the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and also the Applicants are purposely and intentionally being harassed in the garb of the said Departmental Proceeding without any valid and substantial reason. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the employees who had been taken in the service, initially as a daily rated capacity, but subsequently they were regularized. Subsequent to the order of regularization, the respondent-authority, the writ petitioners herein, had decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against the appointees who have been regularized on the ground of commission of fraud. The respondent No.3 has issued order on 13.11.2020 directing the applicants to appear in the departmental enquiry on 02.12.2020 and 03.12.2020 respectively against the same charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 otherwise ex-party enquiry will be held and no further adjournment will be granted which is in fact contemptuous. Aggrieved thereof applicants file OA No. 51/00444/2020 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit bench at Ranchi). Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2025 quashed the order dated 13.11.2020 and further directed the respondent/ petitioner herein to grant all consequential benefits to the applicants. Respondent/ petitioner herein being aggrieved with the order of the tribunal preferred the present petition. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner- BSNL: 4. Mr. Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2025 quashed the order dated 13.11.2020 and further directed the respondent/ petitioner herein to grant all consequential benefits to the applicants. Respondent/ petitioner herein being aggrieved with the order of the tribunal preferred the present petition. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner- BSNL: 4. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-BSNL has submitted that the learned Tribunal while allowing the Original Applications has not been considered the fact that the element of fraud has been found in course of inquiry which has been conducted in compliance to the order dated 11.04.2018 passed in O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017. 5. It has been contended that in such a serious irregularity which has been surfaced in course of inquiry, that too, by virtue of the liberty granted vide order dated 17.01.2018 passed in WP(S) No.5032 of 2017 which cannot be said to be in the garb of administrative review rather whatever power of the administrative review has been exercised, i.e., in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Tribunal as per the direction passed in paragraph-23 passed in O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017. 6. The ground has been taken that even in the admitted facts and circumstances, the memorandum of charge, even though common, has been quashed and set aside by the learned Tribunal in the litigation preferred by one set of the employees as per the order dated 01.08.2017 passed in O.A No.051/00335/2017 but the learned Tribunal since has granted such liberty to go for the inquiry and, as such, the writ petitioner if proceeded by conducting an inquiry, the same cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction and, hence, the order since has been passed on the backdrop of the fact that the writ petitioner has issued the notice beyond its jurisdiction is bad in the eyes of law. 7. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is, therefore, not sustainable and it is fit to be quashed and set aside. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Applicants: 8. While on the other hand, Mrs. 7. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is, therefore, not sustainable and it is fit to be quashed and set aside. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Applicants: 8. While on the other hand, Mrs. Manju Patra, the learned counsel for the respondent-applicants has submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is identical to W.P(S) No.497 of 2026 with W.P(S) No.6953 of 2025 preferred by the writ petitioner-BSNL in which this Court vide a reasoned order dated 05.02.2026 while dismissing the said writ petitions has decided the issue in favour of the respondent-applicants. Therefore, it has been prayed that the present writ petition may also be decided on the aforesaid terms. 9. Upon this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised no objection and has fair enough to submit that the issues involved in the present writ petition is similar to the issues involved in W.P(S) No.497 of 2026 with W.P(S) No.6953 of 2025 which has already been decided in favour of the respondent-applicants and, as such, this writ petition may also be decided on the aforesaid terms. Analysis: 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11. This Court, in view of the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that it is relevant to reproduce the findings of this Court while dismissing W.P(S) No.497 of 2026 with W.P(S) No.6953 of 2025 vide order dated 05.02.2026, the relevant paragraphs of which are quoted hereunder as: “23. The learned Tribunal while passing the order impugned in these two writ petitions, has given a finding on consideration of the issues as to whether the respondent-BSNL, the writ petitioner herein, is competent to conduct an administrative review of the matter once the judicial review has been made over the decision of the administrative officials. 24. This Court is to examine the consideration of the aforesaid issue which has been answered against the writ petitioner by the learned tribunal. 25. 24. This Court is to examine the consideration of the aforesaid issue which has been answered against the writ petitioner by the learned tribunal. 25. So far power of this Court is concerned to exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is to be exercised by the power of judicial review, since, this Court is not exercising the original jurisdiction as conferred as an extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather the power of judicial review is being exercised against the order passed by the Court of law being a Court of first instance as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261 . 26. The power which is to be exercised as per the position of law is to look into the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Tribunal only in a case error apparent on the face of the order or in a case of perversity of finding in exercise of power conferred under the power of judicial review as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph-99 in the aforesaid judgment. The said paragraph is being referred as under: “ 99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323- B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323- B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated. 27. The interpretation of the word “Judicial Review” is well settled which can only be exercised if there is an error apparent on the face of the order or the element of perversity is found to be there. The error apparent on the face of the order means that if the order appears on its face having with error, then only the power of judicial review is to be exercised. 28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39 has held at paragraph-30 that the power of judicial review must be exercised by the Court after determining that the impugned is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and not the same has been established by a process of reasoning. Paragraph- 30 of the aforesaid judgment is being referred as under: "30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self- evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self- evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 ] . ---." 29. In the case of T.C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa and Anr., (1955) 1 SCR 250 , their Lordship have held that the patent error in a decision can be corrected when it is manifested by the error apparent on the face of the proceedings. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder: "11. ... An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision. ...." 30. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled legal position it is evident that the power of judicial review can be exercised, if error on the face of the order impugned, challenged under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, appears to be there. 31. We, since, are to consider the issue of administrative review and, as such, thought it proper to refer the position of law in which circumstances, the administrative authority is to exercise the power of administrative review. 31. We, since, are to consider the issue of administrative review and, as such, thought it proper to refer the position of law in which circumstances, the administrative authority is to exercise the power of administrative review. Law is well settled that the power of review by the administrative authority or the Court of Law except the Court having the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the power of review can only be exercised if provided under the Statute otherwise the power of review cannot be exercised, particularly, for the administrative authority such power is not available to be exercised unless provide specifically in the Statute, reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered in the case of “ Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors”. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437 wherein it has been held by laying down the provision at paragraph-12 regarding the proposition that the review in absence of statutory provision is not available to be exercised, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being quoted hereunder: “12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed is ultra-vires, illegal and without jurisdiction.” 32. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, it is admitted case as per the material available on record and based upon that the argument has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-BSNL that the writ petitioner has decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against the employees who have been regularized by taking them in regular establishment of the writ petitioner-BSNL. As per the writ petitioner, their regularization was nothing but a fraud. Memorandum of charge has been issued against all the employees who were the applicants before the learned Tribunal levelling therein the allegation of fraud in getting the order of their regularization. 33. The applicants/the employees, have preferred two Original Applications, five of them have preferred O.A No.051/00335/2017 and six were the applicants in O.A No.051/00132/2017. Memorandum of charge has been issued against all the employees who were the applicants before the learned Tribunal levelling therein the allegation of fraud in getting the order of their regularization. 33. The applicants/the employees, have preferred two Original Applications, five of them have preferred O.A No.051/00335/2017 and six were the applicants in O.A No.051/00132/2017. The learned Tribunal has disposed of O.A No.051/00335/2017 by quashing and setting aside the memorandum of charge, as would be evident from the operative part which is being quoted hereinabove. 34. The said order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A No.051/00335/2017 has been upheld by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2018 passed in W.P(S) No.5032 of 2017 against which the writ petitioner-BSNL had preferred a Special Leave to Appeal being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s):29396 of 2018 which has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 02.11.2018. Therefore, the order passed so far as direction of quashing the memorandum of charge passed in O.A No. 051/00335/2017 has attained its finality. 35. The learned Tribunal has taken note about the aforesaid fact, which according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from an error, since, the quashing of the memorandum of charge issued against the five employees who are the applicants in O.A No. 051/00335/2017 has attained its finality after dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s):29396 of 2018, since, the writ petitioner-BSNL has not chosen to file review thereafter. 36. However, in the second Original Application being O.A No.051/00132/2017 a different direction was passed as available at paragraph-23 thereof, which has been quoted hereinabove. 37. It is, thus, evident from the order dated 11.04.2018 that the learned Tribunal has kept the memorandum of charge in abeyance by granting liberty to conduct a comprehensive enquiry and initiate action against the “senior officials” guilty of omission and commission which has perpetuated this alleged fraud to be completed within six months of receipt of a copy of the order and till the order of six months the memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 has been kept in abeyance. 38. The question of conducting a comprehensive inquiry and initiation of action and during the aforesaid period the memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 was kept in abeyance was ought to have been acted upon by the writ petitioner herein. 39. 38. The question of conducting a comprehensive inquiry and initiation of action and during the aforesaid period the memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 was kept in abeyance was ought to have been acted upon by the writ petitioner herein. 39. It is admitted case of the writ petitioner that they have conducted inquiry and certain irregularities have been found and, hence, the entire inquiry report was forwarded to the CBI for further necessary action. It is further admitted case of the writ petitioner that the CBI has decided not to institute an FIR and again relegated the matter to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner thereafter has instituted FIR being Deoghar Town PS Case No.94 of 2019. 40. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that the said criminal case is still pending before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has again issued notice upon the employees/applicants to participate in the inquiry which have been challenged by filing two Original Applications being O.A No. 051/00335/2017 and O.A No.051/00132/2017. 41. The learned Tribunal has quashed the notices with a direction to release all consequential benefits, the proprietary of the said order is under consideration in these two writ petitions. 42. The fact which is not in dispute rather admitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner also that the learned Tribunal while quashing the notices has taken note of the fact that no power is conferred upon the administrative authority to exercise the power of administrative review. Such reasoning has been recorded on backdrop of the fact that when the memorandum of charge has already been quashed by the learned Tribunal which has attained finality after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s):29396 of 2018 vide order dated 02.11.2018, then it was not available for the writ petitioner to again call upon the employees by issuing notice to participate in disciplinary inquiry. 43. The fact is also not in dispute that memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 containing the imputation therein were identical against all the employees. 43. The fact is also not in dispute that memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 containing the imputation therein were identical against all the employees. When one set of memorandum of charge issued against one set of the employees have already been quashed and set aside which also attained finality but in the second set of litigation, i.e., O.A No.051/00132/2017 the order has been passed without touching the issue of imputation as was alleged against the employees, rather liberty only was granted to conduct an inquiry to consider the illegality which was committed by the officials who have perpetuated the alleged fraud. The said observation passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A No.051/00132/2017 is, therefore, clarified the position that the learned Tribunal while passing the order has not granted liberty to the writ petitioner to also conduct an inquiry and alleged irregularity said to be committed by one or the other employees, keeping the fact into consideration that the memorandum of charge has already been quashed and set aside by the learned Tribunal which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court as also by the Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal preferred against the said order. 44. The question of issuance of notice, therefore, has rightly been taken note of by the learned Tribunal that it is nothing but reviewing the decision taken by the Court of Law in the administrative side. 45. We are not concerned with respect to the culpability said to be committed by the officials as per the liberty granted vide order dated 11.04.2018 passed in O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017, since, the officials are not before the learned Tribunal, rather the applicants/employees were before the learned Tribunal and the writ petitioner now has instituted FIR against the officials based upon the findings surfaced in course of inquiry said to be preliminary in nature in view of the liberty granted by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2018. 46. The question of issuance of notice is, therefore, agitated by the employees/applicants before the learned Tribunal. The memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 has already been quashed and set aside as also attained its finality upto the Hon’ble Apex Court after dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal, then where is the question and where is the authority having with the writ petitioner to again issue notice against the employees to participate in the inquiry. 47. The memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 has already been quashed and set aside as also attained its finality upto the Hon’ble Apex Court after dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal, then where is the question and where is the authority having with the writ petitioner to again issue notice against the employees to participate in the inquiry. 47. The decision based upon the same set of charge has already been quashed and set aside by quashing the memorandum of charge itself and even in the second set of Original Application being O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017 no such liberty was granted by the learned Tribunal to initiate a fresh inquiry against the employees which cannot be, since, we are living in the era of judicial discipline and if the Forum has passed an order it is to be given respect for the purpose of following the principle of judicial discipline and that has been followed by the learned Tribunal while passing the order dated 11.04.2018 in O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017 and that is the reason the liberty only was granted to look into the element of fraud, if committed by the officials having no word granting liberty to again initiate an inquiry against the employees. But even then, the writ petitioner has issued notice to the employees to participate in the inquiry. 48. The law is well settled that once the memorandum of charge has been quashed, the entire departmental proceeding taken by virtue of the decision is also said to go into the nullity and it is not available for the disciplinary authority to again call upon the employees to participate in the inquiry. 49. The learned Tribunal, in the aforesaid pretext, has formulated the issues of the administrative review on consideration of the fact that once the memorandum of charge itself has been quashed and set aside by the Court of Law, then it cannot be reviewed by the administrative authority by taking decision in administrative side as has been taken by the writ petitioner by issuing notice to the employees to participate in the inquiry. 50. 50. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that we are not found any error apparent on the face of the order or even no element of perversity and as such we decline to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and, accordingly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed.” 12. After going through the aforesaid findings of the order dated 05.02.2026, this Court is of the view that the issue involved in the instant writ petition has already been decided by this Court in W.P(S) No.497 of 2026 with W.P(S) No.6953 of 2025. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed in the light of the order of this Court dated 05.02.2026 passed in W.P(S) No.497 of 2026 with W.P(S) No.6953 of 2025. 14. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.