Gauhati High Court
Babulal Das vs State Of Assam And Anr. on 3 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)3GLR372
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has made a challenge to the order dated 26.10.98 passed by the Chief Jusdicial Magistrage, Tinsukia removing him from service. Shortly stated the facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are as follows:
2. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was serving as UD Assistant in the officer of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia. He was served with a show cause notice dated 16.11.92 under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India asking him to show cause as to why any of the penalties specified in Rule 7 of the said Rules should not be imposed on him. Altogether 6 charges were levelled against him which are as follows :
(1) That while you were serving as Bench Asstt. to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia from 29.5.91 till 31.8.92, you had kept concealed 237 Nos. of MV cases, 77 Nos. of C.R. cases Under Section 34 Police Act and 17 Nos. cases under the MBL Act., 4 Nos. of cases under AMW Act, 2 Nos. under P L Act and one case under C L Act, 4 Nos. of Forest cases and 41 Nos. of cases under the Assam Weights & Measures Act without taking any step and without reflecting them in the Court case Diary.
You are, therefore, charges with gross negligence of duty and misconduct.
(2) That while you were transferred from the Bench to office you were specifically ordered to prepare a list of all the cases and documents etc. in duplicate during the holidays of 29.8.92 and 30.8.92 and to hand over the same along with all the records and documents to the New Bench Asstt. Smti. Bhima Chetri on 31.8.92. But you disobeyed the direction and instead handed over the records and documents in a peace meal manner thereby creating disorderliness and chaos in the court works.
You are, therefore, charged with deliberate disobedience and direction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia.
(3) That while delivering the case records on 1.9.92 to the new Bench Asstt. Smti. Bhima Chetri you failed to hand over her the records of GR 837/91 fixed on that date. Thereafter you have failed to trace out the said record and to hand over to the new Bench Asstt. Instead of repeated orders. The said records has since remained untraced.
You are, therefore, charged with causing disappearance of the records of Case No. GR 837/91.
(4) That while you were serving as Bench Asstt. of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinusukia you had deliberately withheld the case diaries of Case No. GR 845/95 and GR 723/92 although, several dates were fixed for copies and the accused persons were regularly produced from Hazot.
You are, therefore, charged with gross negligence of duty.
(5) That while you were serving as Bench Asstt. You had received the Food samples of Case No. CR 11/92 and CR 19/92 from the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Tinsukia on 12.3.92, along with letter No. 1316 dtd. 12.3.92, but kept the said letter and the two samples concealed till your handing over charge to the new Bench Asstt. With the intention to frustrate the ends of justice by helping the accused of the said two cases.
You are, therefore, charged with gross misconduct which renders you unfit for Govt. service.
(6) That you on 19.9.92 handed over the documents and the register of Case No. GR 563/82 to the new Bench Asstt. And obtained her signature in the list of cases showing that you on handed over the original records of case No. GR 563/82 also without actually handing over the said records of case No. 563/82.
You are, therefore, charged with causing disappearance of case No. GR. 563/82 which renders you unfit for Govt. service.
3. The show cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, who was also cited as a witness in the list of witnesses annexed to the show cause notice. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply dated 4.3.93 denying the allegations levelled against him. Another show cause notice was issued against the petitioner on 2.7.93 under the signature of the same very authority who had earlier issued the show cause notice dated 16.11.92 levelling 3 charges against the petitioner which are as follows :
(1) That while you were serving as Bench Asstt. to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia from 29.6.91 till 31.8.92, you had received the bail amount of Rs. 1000 from the bailor Sri Gobinda Goraik and Susanta Kar on 21.12.91 in court but instead of depositing in court you misappropriated the amount, thereby causing loss to the Government and unnecessary harassment to the bailor.
You are, therefore, charged with criminal misappropriate of Rs. 1000.
(2) That, the certificate of Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta of Case No. G.R. 13/91 was received in court on 20.7.91. But you have caused disappearance of the said certificate with the intention of helping the accused.
You are therefore, charged with causing disappearance of the valuable documents i.e. certificate of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta.
(3) That, judgment was delivered in case No. Misc. 38/91, Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 24.2.92 and 24.3.92 was fixed for payment of maintenance by the 2nd party to the 1st party. You had recorded the delivery of judgment in the case diary on 24.2.92, but you had not carried over the case to 24.3.92. This is an intentional act and culpable negligence on your part which caused unnecessary harassment to the 1st party and also unnecessary wastage the valuable time of the court.
You are, therefore, charged with gross negligence in performing your duty as a Bench Asstt. of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia.
4. In the show cause notice dated 2.7.93, although a statement of allegation was enclosed, but no lists of documents and witnesses were enclosed. The petitioner made request for inspection of the case records and documents relevant to the charges, but he was not given access to the same as per the averments made in his letter dated 1.9.93 by which he had forwarded his show cause reply to the same. In his said letter, the petitioner pointed out as to how he was not given full opportunity to go through the documents relevant to the charges including the, court diary etc. In the said letter he also referred to his earlier letters dated 30.7.93 and 18.8.93 making request therein for inspection of documents which according to him did not yield any result. Since in the meantime the enquiry proceeding was transferred to another Inquiry Officer than the one appointed earlier, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence as forwarded by his said letter dated 1.9.93. In his show cause reply the petitioner denied and pleaded not guilty.
5. The enquiry proceeding initiated against the petitioner in respect of the charges levelled against him by the aforesaid 2 show cause replies came to an end with the submission of the enquiry report by the Inquiry Officer. It will be pertinent to mention here that a single proceeding was conducted against the petitioner in respect of all the charges levelled against him by the aforesaid 2 show cause notices. The Disciplinary Authority-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia issued a letter dated 3.3.98 to the petitioner forwarding a copy of the enquiry report to him and intimated about the agreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of the Inquiry Officer holding the charges to be proved and his provisional decision to impose the penalty of removal from service and asked the petitioner to make representation against the proposed action. It appears that although the Disciplinary Authority in his communication dated 3.3.98 held the charges to be proved, but on perusal of the enquiry report it is found that out of the total 9 charges (6+3), the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of only 4 charges, viz., the charge Nos. 2, 3 and 6 of the first charge sheet and the charge No. 1 of the second charge sheet. The petitioner on receipt of the said letter dated 3.3.98 asking him to submit his show cause reply against the penalty proposed, submitted the same on 10.3.98. It will be pertinent to mention here that the Disciplinary Authority did not ask the petitioner to have his say on the enquiry report but he was only asked to show cause against the proposed action of removal from service. On 26.10.98 the impugned order of removal from service was issued removing the petitioner from service with immediate effect. It is the legality and validity of this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
6. Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his usual eloquence submitted that the petitioner has been made a victim of the circumstances. Tracing back the events leading to removal of the petitioner from the charge of Bench Assistant and placing one Smt. Bhima Chetri in his place Mr. Choudhury submitted that the entire action by way of initiation of the departmental proceeding was actuated by mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Although no procedural irregularity during the course of the enquiry proceeding was attributed, but Mr. Choudhury submitted that denial of inspection of relevant documents before submission of the written statement in respect of the second charge sheet and as reflected in letter dated 1.9.93 submitted by the petitioner, caused serious prejudice to the defence of the petitioner. Referring to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, Mr. Choudhury submitted that on the face of it the findings are perverse and are based on no evidence. In respect of the charge No. 1 in the second show cause notice, he submitted that the Inquiry Officer deviated from the charge levelled against the petitioner and held the petitioner guilty of another charge for which there was no allegation and the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard. Finally he submitted that the Disciplinary Authority who was responsible towards issuance of the charge sheets and that too with a closed and determined bid to inflict penalty against the petitioner, could not have been the witness in the proceedings so as to justify his own action. During the course of hearing, Mr. Choudhury referred to the following decisions :
1. AIR 1958 SC 86 (State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nood)
2. AIR 1962 MP 15 (Nand Kishore Jugal Kishore v. Commissioner)
3. AIR 1967 SC 408 (Andhra Scientific Co. v. A. Seshagiri Rao)
4. AIR 1984 SC 1356 (Arjun Chaubey v. Union of India)
5. Judgment dated 30.10.2003 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 5723/2001 (Sri Kulendra Lahkar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Assam)
7. Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned Govt. advocate appearing for the respondents, in his argument justified the action of the, respondents and for that matter the Disciplinary Authority towards issuance of the impugned order. He submitted that there being no infirmity and procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental proceeding, this court would be reluctant to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that although all the charges levelled against the petitioner were not established, but the charges which were established against the petitioner justified the impugned action against the petitioner. He submitted that the case laws relied upon on behalf of the petitioner are not at all applicable and that the same do not lay down any general proposition supporting the case of the petitioner.
8. The records pertaining to the disciplinary proceeding was called for and are available on records. The respondents have not filed any affidavit. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records the following issues are framed for convenience in the decision making process and the decision :
(A) Whether any prejudice was caused to the petitioner by not giving the opportunity of inspection of documents which he had sought for in respect of the second show cause notice.
(B) Whether the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the four charges holding the same to have been established are perverse and based on no evidence.
(C) Whether the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the first charge of the second show cause notice are in deviation from the charge itself and the petitioner could have been held to be guilty on that basis without giving him further opportunity relating to the same.
(D) Whether the Disciplinary Authority who had issued the two charge sheets, could have cited himself as a witness and deposed in support of the charges.
(E) Whether the Disciplinary Authority acted with a pre-determined mind and denied the opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in respect of the enquiry report so as to persuade the Disciplinary Authority to take a different view from the one taker by the Inquiry Officer resulting in miscarriage of justice.
It will be upon the answer to the aforesaid issues, the legality and validity of the impugned order will depend.
9. Issue No. A : The petitioner at the very outset demanded inspection of documents, but the same was denied to him. It is settled law that after the charge sheet with necessary particulars, including the documents relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority is served on the delinquent and he seeks inspection of those particulars and documents, the same must be given access to the delinquent towards preparation of his defence. If that opportunity is not given, it would violate the principles of natural justice. In the instant case the petitioner sought for inspection of documents at the earliest opportunity which was denied to him and that naturally caused prejudice to his defence. In this connection, I may gainfully refer to the Apex Court decisions as reported in (1995) 1 SCC 404 (Committee of Management v. Shambhu Saran Pandey) and (2000) 10 SCC 373 (Deepak Puri v. State of Haryana). In both the decisions, the Apex Court emphasised the need for supplying the relevant documents to the delinquent at the earliest opportunity to prepare his defence. In the instant case not to speak of allowing the inspection of documents as prayed for by the petitioner, the charge sheet itself did not contain the lists of documents and witnesses which are mandatorily required to be furnished to the delinquent at the time of delivering the charge sheet as per the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rule, 1964.
In view of the above position of fact and law, the issue is answered in favour of the petitioner holding that denial of opportunity to inspect the document resulted in prejudice to the defence of the petitioner.
10. Issue No. B : The three charges in respect of the first charge sheet which have been held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer are in respect of charge Nos. 2, 3 and 6 which are alleged disobedience of the order of the superior officer, disappearance of case records in GR Case No. 837/ 91 and handing over of only the document file in respect of GR Case No. 563/83 to the new incumbent Smt. Bhima Chetri and obtaining the receipt from her showing handing over of the entire case records.
According to charge No. 2, the petitioner was verbally ordered by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Chief Judicial Magistrate to prepare a list of cases during holidays, i.e., 29.8.92 and 30.8.92 and to hand over the list to the new incumbent Smt. Bhima Chetri on 31.8.92, but the petitioner failed to comply with the order. It was total denial on the part of the petitioner that any such verbal Order was given to him. However, the Inquiry Officer believed the statement of the Chief Judicial Magistrate testifying the charge that he verbally ordered the petitioner to prepare the list and furnish the same to the new incumbent. It is a case of word against word. There is no independent evidence to bring home the charge. The Inquiry Officer in his finding acted beyond his jurisdiction in recording the finding of guilt on the part of the petitioner holding that the petitioner failed to prepare the list even on subsequent dates. There was no charge against the petitioner on his alleged failure to prepare the list on subsequent dates. However, the Inquiry Officer proceeded to hold the charge to be established against the petitioner on that basis and simply believing the statement of the Disciplinary Authority holding that there was nothing to disbelieve his statement unmindful of as to why the statement made by the petitioner was not believable. Thus such a finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is utterly perverse and hit by the principle of "insufficiency of evidence".
The third charge is relating to alleged causing disappearance of records of GR Case No. 837/91. It is on record and evidence that the petitioner handed over files to Smt. Bhima Chetri on 31.8.92 who acknowledged receipt amongst others the case record of GR Case No. 837/91 by putting a tick mark as a token of receiving the same. However, later on she resiled back from that position and denied having received the said file. The Inquiry Officer simply held that there was nothing to disbelieve the statement made by Smt. Bhima Chetri. However, holding so the Inquiry Officer totally ignored the defence of the petitioner denying the charge. Thus like the second charge which has been held to be established by the Inquiry Officer solely on the basis of the statements of the Disciplinary Authority, in respect of this charge also he simply believed the statement of Smt. Bhima Chetri without there being any independent and corroborating evidence to establish the charge and without discussing anything as to why, the statement of the petitioner was not believable. Thus, I unhesitatingly hold that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on no evidence and utterly perverse.
Same is the case in respect of the sixth charge held to be established against the petitioner. The charge relates to alleged handing over of only the document file in GR Case No. 563/82 by the petitioner to Smt. Bhima Chetri without handing over the entire records. In this case also, Smt. Bhima Chetri acknowledged receipt of the case along with 16 other cases on 8.10.92 from the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer himself has recorded that "In view of this written acknowledgement I have found it difficult to come to the finding that the entire records were not handed over to her by the delinquent as alleged." In spite of such a clear finding in favour of the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge with the following words - "However, such a chaotic situation arose as because the delinquent failed to hand over the records to Bhima Chetri at the time of handing over the charge to her along with the list of the cases as instructed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate and the delinquent should be held responsible for this". Such a finding recorded by the Inquiry officer runs counter to his own finding as reflected above and thus on the face of it utterly perverse and based on conjectures and surmises.
11. This leads us to the first charge in the second charge sheet which has been held to be the proved. This issue has a nexus with the Issue No. C and thus taken up together. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that while he was serving as Bench Assistant to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia from 29.6.91 to 31.8.92, he had received the bail amount of Rs. 1000 from the bailor Sh. Gobinda Goraik and Susanta Kar on 21.12.91 in court, but instead of depositing the same he had misappropriated the amount. There was no mention about any case No. etc. in the charge in respect of which the petitioner allegedly collected and misappropriated the amount. It was a case of total denial on the part of the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer in his report came to the finding that although no order for realisation of the amount from the bailor on. his failure to produce the accused in the court was passed, but the petitioner realized the amount from the said two persons and misappropriated the same. The Disciplinary Authority in the order of removal passed against the petitioner recorded his finding that "He unauthorisedly received Rs. 100 from one Gobinda Goraik, who stood as surety of accused, Samir Kar in CR Case No. 11/85 Under Section 7/6 of PFA Act, without any order of the presiding officer for realization of the amount and misappropriated the same". Such findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority are in respect of a different charge altogether than the one levelled against the petitioner. The whole object of furnishing the statement of allegation accompanying the charge sheet is to give all the necessary particulars and details which would satisfy the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity to put up defence. Both under the common law and under the statute or the Constitution the requirement of a reasonable opportunity are that the person proceeded against should be clearly and specifically told the charges standing against him and he should be given full and adequate opportunity to explain and establish his innocence relating to the charges. The requirement of reasonable opportunity does not depend upon the government servant asking for it. It is a statutory protection that is afforded to him and a statutory obligation is cast upon the Disciplinary Authority to discharge hat obligation irrespective of whether the protection is claimed by the delinquent or not. Here, lies the importance of the provisions as contained in Rule 9 of the Assam Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. Rule 9 of the said Rules laying down the procedure for imposing penalties provides that the Disciplinary authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. In the instant case the initial charge against the petitioner was that he received the bail amount of Rs. 1000 in court, but instead of depositing the same, he misappropriated the same. On bare perusal of the charge leaves no manner of doubt that the allegation was that the petitioner although had received the lawful amount of Rs. 1000, but he failed to deposit the same and misappropriated the amount. The enquiry also proceeded on that basis. However, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of this charge is that although there was no order for realization of the amount from the court, the petitioner misappropriated the same by receiving the amount from the person concerned. The Disciplinary Authority also came to the findings as quoted above so as to hold the said charge to be established against the petitioner. To realize an amount on the basis of order of the court and then to misappropriate the same and realization of the amount as an illegal gratification are two distinct and different charges. The petitioner was never charged of taking illegal gratification but was charged of not having deposit the amount in the court after realizing the same from the person concerned. As against the evidence of the Disciplinary Authority, it was a total denial on the part of the petitioner, however, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the charge to be established without any corroborating evidence. Not only this the Disciplinary Authority who himself had levelled the allegation against the petitioner became a witness against him bringing the very bonafideness on his part to doubt.
In view of the above discussions and findings, the issue No. B and C are answered in favour of the petitioner.
12. Issue No. D : It is a case in which the same very Disciplinary Authority which had issued the charge sheets against the petitioner became the witness in support of the charges. It is in this connection the aforesaid cases have been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Mohammad Nood (supra), the Apex Court after noticing that the Presiding Officer in a departmental trial had given his own testimony against the delinquent held that the same indubitably evidenced a state of mind clearly disclosing considerable bias against the delinquent. The Apex Court went on to say that such a state of affair shocks the notions of judicial propriety and fair play. Agreeing with the findings of the High Court the Apex Court held that the rules of natural justice were completely discarded and all connons of fair play were grievously violated by the Presiding Officer. Decisions arrived at by such a process was held to be not valid and binding.
In the case of Seshagiri Rao (supra) the Apex Court relied upon the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in Mohammad Nood and reiterated the same view. In the case Arjun Chaubey (supra), the Apex Court set aside an order of dismissal passed against a Railway employee after noticing that the order was passed by the authority who had levelled the charges against the employee. In that case the main thrust of the charges against the employee related to his conduct qua the said authority. Therefore, it was not open to the said authority to sit in judgment over the explanation offered by the employee and to decide that explanation as untrue. The Apex Court held that no person could be a judge in his own cause and no witness could certify that his own testimony was true. The Apex Court observed that any one who had a personal stake in the enquiry must keep himself aloof from the enquiry. In that case also the Apex Court relied upon the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Nood. In the case of Nand Kishore (supra) a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the Disciplinary Authority who had issued the charge sheet on the basis of the materials which came to his knowledge could not have appeared as a witness in the enquiry. Same view has been expressed in the case of Kulendra Lahkar (supra).
In the instant case the Disciplinary Authority who had issued the charge sheets cited himself to be a witness and in fact deposed against the petitioner. Thus it is case of the Disciplinary Authority recording his own testimony against the petitioner disclosing a state of mind which clearly discloses considerable bias against the petitioner. In all fairness he ought to have disassociated himself from the enquiry proceeding but instead showed his overzealousness in the matter by becoming a witness to bring home the charges against the petitioner.
In view of the above, it is held that the Disciplinary Authority could not have cited himself as a witness and become a witness against the petitioner in respect of the charges levelled against him by himself. Thus the issue No. D is answered in favour of the petitioner.
13. This leads us to the last issue, viz., whether the Disciplinary Authority acted with a pre-determined mind and denied the opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in respect of the enquiry report so as to persuade the Disciplinary Authority to take a different view from the one taken by the Inquiry Officer resulting in miscarriage of justice. On perusal of the letter dated 3.3.98 by which the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner with the proposal of imposing the penalty of removal after agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer there is no iota of doubt that the Disciplinary Authority first made up his mind upon agreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer to impose the penalty of removal from service and then asked the petitioner to furnish his reply to the action proposed and not to submit any representation against the enquiry report. Thus it is a case of empty formality inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority even before furnishing the copy of the enquiry report asking the petitioner to submit his reply and then upon consideration of the enquiry report and the representation to arrive at a finding relating to the penalty, came to the provisional finding in agreement with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Office to remove the petitioner from service and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply not against the enquiry report but against the penalty proposed against him. Thus the Disciplinary Authority acted with a pre-determined mind towards imposition of the penalty of removal against the petitioner even before he could make his representation persuading the Disciplinary Authority not to accept the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. There is a purpose behind affording the opportunity of making a representation against the enquiry report and cannot be in empty formality, but in the instant case the Disciplinary Authority first decided, may be provisionally, to impose the penalty of removal on the petitioner upon an agreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and then asked the petitioner to submit his reply against the action proposed and not against the inquiry report. Thus the link between the final decision and the representation against the enquiry report is missing in the instant case.
In view of the above the Issue No. E is answered accordingly.
14. Upon answering the issues as above, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of penalty imposed against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 26.10.98 is not sustainable and liable to be set aside and quashed which I accordingly do. The order of penalty is also cryptic and does not disclose as to how the evidence on record was taken into consideration.
15. With the setting aside of the impugned order of penalty, the question necessarily comes for consideration as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to the back wages and also as to whether the period of suspension was wholly unjustified entitling him to full salary for the said period. The petitioner was placed under suspension to facilitate the departmental proceeding and thus the same cannot be said to be unjustified. He was removed from service by the order dated 26.10.98. Although out of the four charges, the three charges have been, held to be perverse and based on no evidence at all, but the fourth charge has been held to be not proved on technical ground. The charge which has been held to be established is different from the one levelled against the petitioner for which the petitioner was not given any opportunity Nonetheless the charge is serious and the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in respect of the charge as reflected in the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. In such a situation I am not inclined to grant the benefit of back wages, to the petitioner for the period of suspension and removal except the subsistence allowance which the petitioner received during the period of suspension. However, the said periods shall be counted towards all other service benefits like notional fixation of pay and continuity in service etc. It is further provided that although the petitioner has been held to be not guilty of the four charges out of which in one charge on technical ground, it will be open for the competent authority to proceed against the petitioner in respect of the fourth charge, if so advised.
16. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 26.10.98 stands quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service within two months from today.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.