Hon’ble Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra, J.—Pursuant to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28.3.2006 in Original Application No. 1435 of 2003 “Shyam Lal v. Union of India and three others” thereby setting aside the order of removal of respondent No. 1 and reinstating him in the service with all consequential benefits, the present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of Union of India and three others.

2. Facts in brief are that respondent No. 1 was a Group-’D’ Railway Employee. On account of his alleged unauthorized absence with effect from 2.3.1998 to 28.8.1998, an inquiry was initiated in the matter and consequently charge-sheet was served on him. The Inquiry Officer fixed several dates for his appearance and further disciplinary proceedings. Despite full knowledge of the pending disciplinary proceedings, respondent No. 1 neither turned up before the Inquiry Officer nor cooperated in the proceedings, therefore, the Inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte against him and submitted his report dated 27.11.1999 holding the charges leveled against him as proved. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer passed the order of removal of respondent No. 1 from service. An appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority was preferred by the respondent No. 1, but that too was dismissed. A revision/special appeal against the same did not yield any result. Above-said orders were challenged by respondent No. 1 by moving original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad where his claim has been accepted in its entirety with reinstatement and full back wages. An interim order was passed on 27th July, 2006 in this petition staying the operation of the impugned order.

3. Respondent No. 1 filed counter-affidavit refuting the allegations made in the writ petition and challenging the validity of the Inquiry Report.

4. In the instant case on the allegation of unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 2.3.1998 to 28.8.1998, a charge-sheet was served on the respondent No. 1 directing him to submit his written statement within ten days from the date of receipt of the charge-sheet. He was also given the liberty to take the assistance, if so desires, of any other railway employee for inspecting the documents and assisting him in presenting his case before the Inquiring Authority in the event of an oral inquiry being held.

5. At the instance of the Court, the original file relating to disciplinary proceedings of respondent No. 1 was placed before the Court during the arguments by learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. A perusal of the original inquiry file reveals that respondent No. 1 on 1.9.1998 requested the Inquiry Officer to provide him two days time for disclosing the name of the Railway employee who could assist him in presenting his case before the Inquiry Officer. At this, the Inquiry Officer adjourned the proceedings for 18.3.1999. One Mr. M. Ahmed, ASM, Railway volunteered to provide his assistance to respondent No. 1 but despite his willingness, he could not appear on any date before the Inquiry Officer for want of permission from his Controlling Officer. Respondent No. 1, though attended the proceedings on some dates, but in the absence of the help of his defence assistant, he could not participate in it.

7. It shall be proper to mention here that respondent No. 1 informed the Inquiry Officer in writing on 26.4.1999 to the effect that his defence assistant was not being relieved by his controlling officer for the purpose on the pretext of rush of work but no action was taken by the Inquiry Officer. In fact, in the present circumstances, rather than going ahead with the proceedings, Inquiry Officer should have written to the Controlling Officer for getting Mr. M. Ahmed, Defence Assistant spared from duty for some hours for attending the said inquiry. Due to inaction of Inquiry Officer, defence assistance could not appear even on the