( 1 ) BOTH these petitions, (Union of India and others Vs. Gulam Mohmad Ghanchi (S. C. A. No. 11278/01) and Union of India and others Vs. Arvindbhai M. Patel (S. C. A. No. 12531/03)), are decided by this common judgment, since ultimate question for determination is common. However, before adverting to the same, brief facts of each case are being given separately. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

( 2 ) S. C. A. NO. 11278/01-GULAM Mohmad Ghanchi: respondent-Gulam Mohmad Ghanchi was serving as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM), Dabhasa, Taluka Padra. He was put off duty (suspension) on 31-08-1991. Thereafter, he was chargesheeted on 11-02-1992 on the charges that he received one registered letter no. 856 for delivery to the Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, but did not deliver the same to the Branch Manager, and instead delivered the same to somebody else, resulting in misappropriation of some amount, and that he received a registered letter dated 15-07-1991 for delivery to the Central Bank of India, duly entered at Sr. No. 3 and 4 in B. O. slip dated 16-07-1991, but was not delivered to EDA Dabhasa for delivery and given to another person, and the address receipt was not kept with B. O. slip dated 26-07-1991. Enquiry was conducted against him and held guilty of the charges, therefore removed from service. After putting him off duty from 31-08-1991, no subsistence allowance was paid to him. Appeal against the order was rejected by the appellate authority, therefore, action was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (CAT ). In the Criminal Case No. 138/p/1999 (C. R. No. 624/91) (Old Case No. 154/p/1995) filed for the same charges, the respondent stood acquitted by judgment dated 31-03-2001 of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai.

( 3 ) S. C. A. NO. 12531/03-ARVINDBHAI M. Patel: arvindbhai M. Patel was working as Extra-Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) Oz (Bhalod SO ). He was charge-sheeted on 15-02-1996 for imputations that he failed to maintain devotion to duty, engaged in forgery of signatures of the depositors, etc. Enquiry was conducted. However, Enquiry Officer reported that all the charges were not proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and issued notice to the respondent inviting his representation against proposed penalty to be imposed on him. Accordingly, respondent submitted his reply. Thereafter, penalty of removal from service was inflicted on him. He was put off duty (suspension) from 23-11-1995 prior to service of charge sheet and as per order dated 23-11-1995, no subsistence allowance was paid to him during the pendency of the inquiry. The respondent challenged the order before the CAT.

( 4 ) THE common grievance advanced by the respondents is that during the course of inquiry they were not paid subsistence allowance, therefore, they could not defend themselves in the inquiry proceedings, and consequently, there is failure of principles of natural justice, and on this count, inquiry proceedings stand vitiated. CAT placed reliance on Apex Court decisions in Peter D Jada and another Vs. Superintendent of Post Offices Udupi and others ( (1989) ATC 225), Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki Vs. The Presiding Officer and another (1986 LLJ 124), Ram Lakhan etc. Vs. Presiding Officer and others (2000 (2) Scale 9), State of Maharashtra Vs. Chanderbhan (AIR 1983 SC 803), Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another (AIR 1999 SC 1416) and O. P. Gupta Vs. Union of India (1987 4 SCC 328), and came to the conclusion that non-payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of domestic inquiry amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, enquiry proceedings stand vitiated, and consequently respondents has been directed to be reinstated with immediate effect in the same post. It was further