ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. The respondent was charged for being absent from duty in the Emergency of attending on the flood victims between July 18, 1975 and July 21, 1975. He was further charged for other derelictions of duty. The details are not necessary. Suffice it to state that enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report that respondent No.1 had admitted that he was having a private practice at Moga during the period of his suspension in spite of the directions issued by the Government in the suspension order to remain at Head-quarter. Accordingly, the disciplianry authority removed him from service which came to be challenged in the High Court. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. On appeal, the Division Bench confirmed the same in the impugned order dated November 17, 1993 in L.P.A. No.398/92. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

3. It is seen that the Enquiry Officer s report is based on the alleged admission made by the respondent. But, unfortunately, the Enquiry Officer has not taken his admission in writing. Subsequently, the respondent had