Page No.# 1/20 GAHC010053272024 2026:GAU-AS:7433 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (PRINCIPAL SEAT) WP(C)/1555/2024 Gias Uddin Laskar …PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Assam & 3 Others …RESPONDENT Advocates for the appellant : Mr. S. Borthakur, Sr. Advocate Mr. D. Gogoi Advocates for the respondents : Mr. T.C. Chutia, Sr. Advocate and Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR Page No.# 2/20 JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Date : 27.5.2026 Heard Mr. Santonu Borthakur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Sr. Counsel and Senior Government Advocate representing all the respondents. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, who was dismissed from service, challenging the enquiry report dated 31.07.2023, the order dated 31.08.2023 and the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the DIG (SR) Assam, Silchar, which upheld the order dated 31.08.2023. 3. The enquiry report, assailed in this writ petition, had opined that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him by the memorandum of charge dated 16.05.2023. Based on the aforesaid enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service. As aforesaid, the appeal had been dismissed by the appellant authority. 4. The petitioner, prior to his termination, was serving as a constable in the Assam Police since 22.01.2006. At the time of the termination, he was posted at Hailakandi Police Station, as an Unarmed Branch Constable. 5. On 11.02.2023, while the petitioner was deputed as a constable at the Bandukmara Police O.P., he was placed under suspension by an order passed by the Superintendent Police, Hailakandi, on allegations of negligence of duty Page No.# 3/20 committed on 07.02.2023. 6. A show cause notice dated 16.05.2023 was served upon the petitioner, which contained a statement of allegations, a list of documents and a list of witnesses. A perusal of the statement of allegations reflects that the petitioner had been charged with committing acts of misconduct and indiscipline when he had negotiated the deal for allowing the passing of vehicles carrying Burmese betelnut on 07.02.2023 through the territorial jurisdiction of the Bilaipur Police Station, and further that the petitioner had, without any permission, left his place of posting at Bandukmara O.P. and had reached Bilaipur Police Station. For a ready reference, the relevant portion of the statement of allegation is reproduced below; “You are hereby asked to show cause under Section 65 of Assam Police Act, 2007 Read with setion 66(II)(a) and (III) Assam Police AMnual Part-III and Article 311 of the Constitution of India and Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 as to why the penalties prescribed in the aforesaid rules should not be inflicted upon you on the following charges based on the statement of allegations attached herewith. Statement of Allegation While UBC/33 Gias Uddin Laskar was attached to Bandukmara O.P., on 07/02/2023 at night local public of Bilaipur area created hue and cry in front of Bilaipur P.S. gate with an accusation that Bilaipur P.S. staff has allowed to pass 06(six) nos. of illegal Burmese Supari loaded Tata-Di/Tata-Intra vehicles by taking Rs. 60000/- (i.e. Rs. 10000 from each vehicle). In this regards, Inspr. (UB) Joy Sankar Wary, C.I. Lala interrogated IPC. Babul sinha who was detailed for patrolling cum Naka-Checking Page No.# 4/20 duty at that day about the allegation made by the public then H.C. Babul sinha confessed his guilt of accepting Rupees 25,000/- as he share out of Rs.60,000/- from Bn. staff he also stated that driver H.G Aynul Haque Laskar took Rs.3000/- as his share and the rest amount (i.e, Rs. 32,000/-) were taken by the Bn. staff. Further, he stated that he returned the cash amount of Rs. 60,000/- to 2nd O/C SI (UB) Abhijit Sinha and UBC/33 Gias Uddin Laskar negotiated the deal for passing the above mention vehicles with the 2nd O.C of Bilaipur P.S. H.C. Babul Sinha also revealed that only he can identify the owners of Burmese Supari loaded Tata-Di/ Tata-Intra vehicles. On the other hand UBC/33 Gias Uddin Laskar reached Bilaipur P.S from his present place of posting i.e Bandukmara O.P without any prior permission of competent Authority and he negotiated the deal for passing the illegal Burmese Supari loaded vehicles. This is an act of misconduct and indiscipline act of duty on his par which is not acceptable from a member of discipline uniform force. He is therefore, charged misconduct and indiscipline act of duty.” Superintendent of Police. Hailakandi, Assam. 7. The show cause notice listed a copy of the report dated 10.02.2023 submitted by the Inspector (Unarmed Branch) as the sole document to be relied upon. 9 witnesses had been named in the show-cause notice. 8. The petitioner filed his reply to the first cause notice, and by an order dated 24.05.2023, the petitioner was released from his suspension. Not being satisfied with the reply to the first show cause notice, the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police Station (Headquarters) as the Page No.# 5/20 Enquiry Officer and the Sub Inspector of Police (UB) as the presenting officer. 9. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report on 31.07.2023 to the disciplinary authority, namely the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, wherein he opined that on a careful examination of the statements of the prosecuting witnesses, the delinquent and the additional witnesses, the misconduct and indiscipline alleged against the petitioner was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 10. The disciplinary authority thereafter issued a second show cause notice on 8.8.2023 to the petitioner, asking him to submit statements of defence, if any, against the findings referred to in the show cause notice, failing which a final decision would be carried out. Pertinent, the second show cause notice concluded that the charges of misconduct and indiscipline brought against the petitioner had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and in view of the above, he was “hereby” dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct and indiscipline. 11. The petitioner was allowed an extension of 10 days by the letter dated 17.08.2023 to file his reply. 12. The petitioner thereafter filed his reply to the second show cause notice on 24.08.2023, wherein he again explained the circumstances in which he had left his place of posting and had arrived at Bilaipur Police Station. He prayed for dropping the disciplinary proceedings against him. By the order dated 31.08.2023, the disciplinary authority concurring with the findings of the enquiry Page No.# 6/20 report, dismissed the petitioner from service on charges of misconduct and indiscipline. 13. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the disciplinary authority praying for copy of the enquiry report, copy of the evidence of the witnesses recorded during the enquiry, copy of the orders passed in the departmental proceedings as and when there were conducted, copy of the report dated 10.02.2023 which was relied upon during the enquiry proceedings and copies of the statement of the witnesses recorded during preliminary enquiry, that is, before initiation of the departmental proceedings. 14. The petitioner thereafter filed a formal appeal to the DIG, Southern Range, Silchar, on 14.09.2023. The DIGP, Southern Range Silchar, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi. 15. I have heard the Learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, and I have also perused the different documents annexed to the petition. No documents had been annexed to the affidavit in opposition, and no records were produced. The authenticity of the documents annexed to the writ petition was, however, not challenged by the respondents. 16. By the show cause notice dated 16-5-2023, the petitioner had been required to show cause as to why any of the penalties prescribed in the relevant rules should not be inflicted upon him on the charges based on the statement of allegations attached to the show cause notice. The notice apparently is not Page No.# 7/20 one where the petitioner had been asked to reply as to why he should not be held guilty of the alleged misconduct; rather, the petitioner has been required to show cause why penalties should not be inflicted upon him. 17. In Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited -versus- Girija Shankar Pant and others; reported in (2001) 1 SCC 182, the Apex Court was dealing with a show cause notice issued to an employee. The court made the following observations by referring to the language in the show cause notice: “25. Upon consideration of the language in the show-cause notice- cumcharge- sheet, it has been very strongly contended that it is clear that the Officer concerned has a mindset even at the stage of framing of charges and we also do find some justification in such a submission since the chain is otherwise complete.” “The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom -- in the event, however, the conclusion is otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger of bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained” 18. In Oryx Fisheries Private Limited -versus- Union of India and others; reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, the Apex Court had held as follows; “31. It is of course true that the show cause notice cannot be read hypertechnically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a show- cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his Page No.# 8/20 reply to the show cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi- judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence. 32. 32. Therefore, while issuing a show-cause notice, the authorities must take care to manifestly keep an open mind as they are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against and specially when he has the power to take a punitive step against the person after giving him a show cause notice. 33. The principle that justice must not only be done but it must eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence in the mind of those who are subject to it.” 19. In Shri Hiramohan Doley -versus- The State of Assam & others, reported in 2017 (3) GLJ 714, where similar language was employed in the show cause notice, this Court had held that such a language indeed reflects the pre-conceived mind of a disciplinary authority. It was held that when the delinquent was asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him as per Assam Municipal Act, 1956, even before hearing his version, the respondents had already formed the opinion that he had remained willingly absent from duty. It appeared that the show-cause notice was issued with a pre-determined mindset and was a mere formality adopted by the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner. 20. In the present case, it is noticed that the disciplinary authority had while furnishing the first notice itself used language to which, in the considered opinion of this Court, the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court as Page No.# 9/20 referred hereinabove clearly apply, and therefore the very initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner by the first show notice itself cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 21. From the enquiry report annexed to the petition, it appears that although nine witnesses had been named in the show cause notice, the enquiry officer had not only examined the said nine witnesses, but had also gone ahead to examine the petitioner himself as PW 10 and had also called for an additional witness, PW 11. 22. It is a settled position in law that when an unlisted witness is called during an enquiry, it is mandatory that the accused/delinquent officer has to be given notice of the intention to call for such witness and that he has also to be informed as to by whom such witness has been proposed. He also has to be informed about the requirement for calling such a witness into the enquiry. In other words, the charged employee cannot be asked to face a witness without prior intimation. This proposition is the very essence of the requirement of a list of witnesses and a list of documents to mandatorily accompany the memorandum of charge. It is another matter that, in the present case, the said additional witness had supported the case of the petitioner and demolished the case of the prosecution. Be that as it may, the manner in which the said witness was called to the enquiry cannot have the approval of this Court, since it indicates a premeditation and bias in the functioning of the enquiry officer. Moreover, in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that there was Page No.# 10/20 a request by the presenting officer or by the disciplinary authority to call for the additional witness. In the absence of any such request, this court has no hesitation in inferring that the enquiry officer had taken it upon himself to call for such witnesses to prove the allegation imputed against the petitioner, and therefore, had acted as the prosecutor also. 23. The role of an enquiry officer has been extensively discussed in the case of Union of India versus Ram Lakhan Sharma, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670, wherein it has been held as follows: "28. Xxxx As far as position in law is concerned, it is common ground that if the Inquiring Authority plays the role of a Prosecutor and cross-examines defence witnesses or puts leading questions to the prosecution witnesses clearly exposing a biased state of mind, the inquiry would be opposed to principles of natural justice. But the question for consideration in this case is: Whether the Inquiry Officer did so? It is also settled law that an Inquiring Authority is entitled to put questions to the witnesses for clarification wherever it becomes necessary and so long the delinquent employee is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses after the Inquiring Authority questions the witnesses, the inquiry proceedings cannot be impeached as unfair." **** ***** ***** ***** 35. Thus, the question as to whether Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of particular case. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer himself led the examination in chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court further Page No.# 11/20 held that the Inquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already been noticed from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High court giving rise to Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2012." In the case in hand, though a presenting officer has been appointed, the enquiry proceedings reveal that the presenting officer was a mere spectator and the entire proceeding was conducted at the instance of the enquiry officer. Neither has any of the witnesses introduced any documents during the enquiry, nor has any document been exhibited by any of the witnesses. It is apparent from the records that while finalizing his opinion on the guilt of the petitioner, the enquiry officer has neither required the presenting officer to present a presenting officer's brief nor required the petitioner herein to present a defence brief. Therefore, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that the enquiry officer has also played the role of a presenting officer, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. 24. The enquiry report divulges that the petitioner had been made to stand as a PW 10, that is, as one of the prosecution witnesses. This is a process unheard of in service law. When the petitioner, who was the charged officer, had been made to stand up as a witness against himself, he was, without doubt, deprived him of the opportunity to stand as a defence witness and therefore, even in that view of the matter, the enquiry officer appears to have acted in bias and with a predetermined mind to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Page No.# 12/20 25. While perusing the enquiry report, this Court has gone through the statement of the PW No. 4, where the aforesaid witness had stated that the petitioner had simply enquired of him as to whether any Burmese betelnut- loaded vehicles were passing through or not and when he replied negatively, the petitioner did not make any further probe. On the next morning, that is on 8.2.2023, when the accused had met the aforesaid witness, there was only an exchange of formalities, and there were no other conversations between PW number 4 and the accused. 26. The statement of the PW number 11 is absolutely in favor of the petitioner. He had stated that the petitioner had approached him at around 11.30 am on 7.2.2023 and had sought permission for proceeding to Silchar for the treatment of his wife. Accordingly, the PW number 11 had permitted the petitioner to take his wife for treatment. He stated that he did not inform the then-in-charge of the Hailakandi PS about the leave granted by him. He further stated that the petitioner had returned to the Bandukmara Outpost on 8.2.2023. This evidence totally demolishes the allegation against the petitioner that he had left his place of duty at Bandukmara without the permission of a senior officer. Unfortunately, the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have held the petitioner guilty of the charge of leaving his duty without permission. 27. The analysis made by the enquiry officer on the different statements of the witnesses requires a reproduction herein. They are to the following effect. “During enquiry of my I observed that on 07.02.2023 at around 12 noon UBC/38 Gias Page No.# 13/20 Uddin Laskar was receive an information from his wife over phone that his wife is suffering from pain. So, the delinquent seek permission to NK(UB)184 Samarjit Dey accordingly NK(UB)184 Samarjit Dey permitted him with an instruction to return next day morning. As per verbal permission he went to his house at Bilalpur on 07.02.2023 for his wife's treatment as his wife was pregnant. There after he moved for Silchar accompanied his wife. While the delinquent UBC/38 Gias Uddin Laskar was returning from R.E. Nurshing Home Silchar to his house at Bilaipur with his wife by a Car at around 10-30 P.M on way he met with duty party (H.C. Babul Sinha and others) and then he did not talk with anybody about illegal passing of Buemese Supari. Next day early morning i.e. on 08.02.2023 at around 4 A.M while he was returning to his place of posting again he met with the duty party and then also he did not ask anything about illegal passing of Buemese Supari. He returned to his place of posting at Bandukmara O.P in the morning of 08.02.2023 at around 7 A.M. During my enquiry it is learnt from the statement of Inspector (UB) Joy Sankar Warry, the then C.I. Lala that UBC/38 Gias Uddin Laskar might be involved passing of Burmese betel nuts loaded trucks at Bilaipur P.S area on the night of 07.02.2023 where as UBC/38 Gias Uddin Laskar visited the Bilaipur P.S and met with P.S staff and on that night 6 (six) Nos of betel nuts loaded trucks passed the Bilaipur P.S area. Further, enquiry it is also found that the delinquent UBC/38 Gias Uddin Laskar left his place of posting i.e. Bandukmara O.P without prior permission from any superior officers.” 28. Thereafter, the enquiry officer came to an abrupt finding that the petitioner might be involved in the passing of Burmese betelnut-loaded trucks at Bilaipur PS area on the night of 7.2.2023 and that he had left his place of posting at Bandukmara OP without prior permission from any superior officers. The basis for coming to the said conclusion cannot be traced to the evidence led by the witnesses produced during the enquiry proceedings. Page No.# 14/20 29. The prosecution witnesses had specifically stated that PW number 11 had given him verbal permission to leave his place of posting and go for the treatment of his wife with instructions to return on the next morning, and further that the petitioner had not discussed about the illegal passing of Burmese Supari on either 7.2.2023 or 8.2.2023 with any of the witnesses. 30. In such a view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the finding of the enquiry officer that “the charge of misconduct and indiscipline on the part of the petitioner was approved beyond a reasonable doubt” was not based on any evidence, and therefore, was a perverse, biased and predetermined conclusion. The very basic element of fairness and impartiality was missing in the enquiry proceedings. 31. While perusing the second show cause notice dated 8.8.2023, this court notices that it does not divulge that the petitioner had been provided with a copy of the enquiry report along with the second show cause notice. The assertion that the petitioner was not served with a copy of the enquiry report is fortified by his application dated 4.9.2023, which was preferred just prior to the filing of the departmental appeal, wherein he had requested the disciplinary authority to provide him, amongst other documents, a copy of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. Pertinent, the application dated 4.9.2023 had been preferred after the petitioner had been dismissed from his service by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, it has been amply exhibited that the petitioner was required to file his reply to the second show cause notice without Page No.# 15/20 even being supplied a copy of the enquiry report. 32. The effect of non-supply of a copy of the enquiry report to a charged officer while requiring him to reply against the findings of the enquiry is already settled to the end that, in the event a Court concludes that the charged officer had suffered any prejudice due to non-supply of the enquiry report, the proceedings thereafter would not stand scrutiny of law and would require interference. 33. In the present case, it has already been observed herein before that the statement of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution did not, in any manner whatsoever, implicate the petitioner and yet the enquiry officer had come to a finding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Had the petitioner been supplied a copy of the enquiry report before being required to reply to the second show cause, he could have attempted to defend himself, if necessary, by alleging bias and non-application of mind by the enquiry officer. In view of the contradiction in the evidence and the findings of the enquiry officer, I am of the considered view that the non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner along with the second show cause notice had caused him prejudice enough to enable this court to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings. 34. A striking feature of the second show cause notice, which would render it wholly perverse and would display the bias of the disciplinary authority, is that the said notice, while asking the petitioner to show cause against the findings of the enquiry officer, had already dismissed him from service. The 2nd Show cause notice reads as follows: Page No.# 16/20 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE::::::HAILAKANDI:::::ASSAM Memo No. HKD/R/2023/4122 Dated Hailakandi, 08/08/12023 To, UBC/38 Gias Uddin Laskar, Hailakandi DEF. Hailakandi DEF. Sub :- 2nd Show Cause Notice. You are hereby informed that, the enquiry into the charges framed against you in connection with D.P. No. 06/2023 drawn up has been completed. On perusal of the findings it is concluded that the charges of misconduct and indiscipline act of duty brought against you have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above, you are hereby dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct and indiscipline act of duty. You are hereby asked to submit statement of defence in writing to the undersigned, if any. against the above referred findings within 10 (ten) days falling which final decision will be carried out and notified accordingly. Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, Assam. 35. The second Show cause notice reveals that the disciplinary authority has already made up his mind regarding the guilt of the petitioner and has already terminated the petitioner from his services. It is only through the second show cause notice that the petitioner was, for the first time, put to notice about the findings of the enquiry officer without being supplied a copy of the enquiry report. Therefore, it is apparent that the notice had been served on the petitioner after the disciplinary authority had already held the petitioner liable for punishment. The opportunity offered to the petitioner to frame a reply to the findings was a mere formality. Such empty formalities vitiate the enquiry proceedings and therefore, any action or decision on the basis of such a Page No.# 17/20 proceeding would suffer serious infirmities and, in the present case, would render the order dated 31.8.2023, dismissing the petitioner from service, unworthy of being sustained in law and deserving an interference of the writ Court. 36. The next document that falls for consideration is the final order passed by the disciplinary authority. Having perused the said order, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 31.8.2023 cannot escape interference. The impugned order is apparently based on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, and this court has found the enquiry process to have been conducted perfunctorily, where the enquiry officer had formed an opinion in total contradiction to the evidence led by the prosecution witness. The order dated 31.8.2023 did not take into account the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness, and also did not discuss in what manner the disciplinary authority differed with the reply filed by the petitioner to the second show cause notice. The disciplinary authority even failed to notice that the petitioner had not been served with a copy of the enquiry report before he was asked to file his reply to the second show cause notice. 37. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find the order dated 31.8.2023 passed by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner, dismissing him from service, to be tenable in law and therefore, in the opinion of this court, the order dated 31.8.2023 deserves interference. 38. In view of the findings and observations made herein above, I have no Page No.# 18/20 hesitation to hold that the enquiry proceedings, which had culminated in a biased report not supported by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the second show cause notice, and the order dated 31.8.2023 by which the petitioner was terminated, are beyond the contours of law as understood in service jurisprudence. The enquiry, the second show cause notice and the impugned order dated 31.8.2023, therefore, deserve to be declared null and void and are accordingly declared to be so. The order dated 31.8.2023 is accordingly set aside and quashed, as are the findings of the enquiry officer. 39. On setting aside the order of the termination, the order dated 3.1.2024 passed by the appellate authority, which was a subsequent order passed on the basis of the departmental proceedings, also cannot be allowed to hold the field and therefore, is accordingly interfered with and quashed. It is relevant to mention herein that, upon going through the order dated 3rd of January 2024, I have also noticed that the authority has not given any reasons to agree with the order of the disciplinary authority and to uphold the decision. The appellate authority has not discussed the impact of the evidence led by the prosecution witness, which was unequivocal in confirming that the petitioner had left his place of posting with due permission from his immediate superior authority and further that he had not discussed about the arrangement to allow Burmese betelnut-laden trucks to pass through the territorial jurisdiction of the Bilaipur police station. In any event, when the enquiry proceedings and the order of the disciplinary authority could not withstand the scrutiny of law, the appellate Page No.# 19/20 orders also stand interfered with. 40. As a consequence of the setting aside of the termination of the petitioner, the entitlement of the petitioner for reinstatement in his service is a consequential relief. The respondent authorities, more specifically, the respondent No.4, shall pass necessary orders forthwith requiring the petitioner to report for his duties. The period of absence from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement shall, for all purposes, be considered as continued service, including seniority and pension, etc. 41. The case substantially complies with the conditions laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Jr. Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others reported in (2013) 10-SSC-324. Therefore, upon reinstatement in his service, the petitioner shall file an affidavit regarding his employment or otherwise during the period intervening his dismissal from service and the date of his reinstatement. Unless the respondents find that the petitioner was gainfully engaged during that period, the petitioner shall also be entitled to the arrears of salary which would have accrued to him, but for the illegal termination. The petitioner shall, however, not be entitled to the allowances and benefits that are connected to the actual discharge of duty within that period. 42. Since the prosecution evidence in the enquiry proceedings did not, in any manner, implicate the petitioner of the charges levelled against him, I am of the considered opinion that granting a liberty to the respondent authorities to initiate a fresh disciplinary proceeding on the same charges is not called for. Page No.# 20/20 Therefore, such a liberty is not given in the present case. 43. The written petition accordingly stands disposed of, no costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant