Prathiba M. Singh, J.

The present appeal by the appellants assails order dated 2nd September, 2013 passed by the Learned Single Judge. The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd is appellant no. 1 (for short, ‘ONGC’) and the Director (Onshore) is appellant no. 2 (for short, ‘Director (Onshore)’) in the present appeal. By the impugned judgment, the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and his termination was set aside. The respondent was reinstated in service with consequential benefits, however without back wages. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:

“In the result, the writ petition is allowed on the grounds discussed above. The petitioner be reinstated in the service and he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, except the back wages.”

2. The genesis of the dispute was a call for strike by the Association of Scientific and Technical Officers (for short, ‘ASTO’) at the Rajahmundry premises of ONGC in January, 2009. ‘Services in any oil field’ was declared a public utility service by the Government of India vide Notification No.S-11017/10/97 dated 4th November, 2008. The strike call given by ASTO was ceased and the strike so commenced was declared to be ‘illegal' under Sections 22 and 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. On 8th January, 2009, ONGC imposed penalty of removal from service on the respondent, along with 63 others, for taking part in the nationwide strike. On 12th January, 2009 the respondent made an appeal to the Chairman cum Managing Director (for short, ‘CMD’) of ONGC offering an apology and seeking reinstatement. On 29th January, 2009 the order dated 8th January, 2009 was set aside and the case was remitted to the Central Disciplinary Authority (for short ‘CDA’) for completion of disciplinary action against the respondent as per the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘CDA Rules’). While setting aside the termination of the respondent, the respondent was placed under suspension with Rajahmundry as Headquarters. This order was issued after a decision of the Board of Directors of ONGC. On 17th February, 2009, the respondent was transferred from Rajahmundry to Bokaro with immediate effect. Disciplinary proceedings were commenced after the appointment of an Inquiry Officer. Between February, 2009 to June, 2009 several letters were issued to the respondent extending the date of relieving him from Rajahmundry and directing him to join at Bokaro. Since the respondent, relying on a technicality that his suspension was never revoked and that he had to continue to face disciplinary proceedings at Rajahmundry did not report for joining at Bokaro, a formal order was issued by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of ONGC on 16th June, 2009, revoking his suspension and directing him to report at Bokaro. The respondent made repeated appeals to the CMD seeking cancellation of the transfer orders. In the meantime, inquiry proceedings against the respondent concluded at Rajahmundry on 12th October, 2009.

4. In April, 2010 the respondent had filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the suspension order dated 29th January, 2009 and the transfer order dated 17th February, 2009. The Learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court vide order dated 8th April, 2010 dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent. Pursuant to the dismissal, repeated office memoranda were issued to the respondent directing him to join his new posting at Bokaro.

5. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in an inquiry report, submitted by the Inquiry Officer which was served upon the respondent on 18th May, 2010. As per the inquiry report, the respondent had committed ‘gross misconduct’. The operative portion of the inquiry report is extracted below:

“Thus, Sh. B.V. Sirhari Rao, Superintending Geologist, failed to maintain compl