Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar Gaur S/O Shri ... vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... on 19 December, 2007
ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Applicants, SI Sanjay Kumar Gaur in OA No. 1908/2006; HC Vijender Singh, Const. Satvir Singh and Const. Satish Kumar in OA No. 1949/2006; and Const. Parmender Singh in OA No. 1969/2006, faced a joint departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer in his detailed report dated 15.3.2005 (Annexure A-5) held that the charges served upon them could not be substantiated. The disciplinary authority, however, after recording a note of dissent dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure A-2), and after hearing the applicants held the charges framed against them as proved and vide order dated 13.3.2006 (Annexure A-3) ordered their dismissal from service with immediate effect. Their suspension period from 3.9.2004 to 28.8.2005 was ordered to be treated as not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The appellate authority vide order dated 7.8.2006 (Annexure A-4), however, while confirming the guilt against the applicants, modified the punishment of dismissal from service to that of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in their pay. The period from the date of issue of the order to the date of their joining duties was directed to be treated as leave of the kind due, and the suspension period was also decided as not spent on duty. Applicants have filed three Original Applications mentioned above against the common impugned orders dated 13.3.2006 and dated 7.8.2006 passed by the disciplinary and the appellate authorities respectively. Common questions of law and facts are involved in all the three Applications and, therefore, they need to be disposed of by a common order. The learned Counsel representing the parties also suggest likewise.
2. The charge that came to be framed by the enquiry officer against the applicants after recording the evidence of the department reads as follows:
I, H.V.S. Rathi, E.O./ACP/D.E. Cell Delhi, charge you SI Sanjay Gaur No. D-920 (PIS No. 16920058), HC Vijender Singh No. 1313/NW (PIS No. 28871462), Ct. Satbir Singh No. 2676/NW (PIS No. 28950684), Ct. Satish No. 1229/NW (PIS No. 28860576) and Ct. Parminder Singh No. 719/NW (PIS No. 28881411) that while you were posted at P.S. Mangol Puri, Delhi, as Division Beat Officers of Division No. 1 and Beat No. 1 respectively, one complaint regarding facilitating of consumption of liquor by some Rehri Walas near Bus Stop B-Block Mangol Puri Delhi was made by one Sh. Jai Praakash, General Secretary of Jan Jagriti Residents Welfare Association (Regd. Office at B-448, Mangol Puri, Delhi) on which enquiry conducted by P.G. Cell, North West established that you all failed to prevent/take necessary legal action against the consumption of liquor being facilitated by some Rehariwalas at around B-Block, Bus Stop Mangol Puri Delhi. Besides Ct. Parminder Singh No. 719/NW had also disclosed, the name of the complainant to the Rehariwala, who later on threatened the complainant of dire consequences.
The above act on the part of you SI Sanjay Gaur No. D-920, HC Vijender Singh No. 1313/NW, Ct. Satbir Singh No. 2676/NW, Ct. Satish No. 1229/NW and Ct. Parminder Singh No. 719/NW amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of your official duties and unbecoming of a Govt. Servant which renders you all liable for punishment under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules-1980.
It would be seen from the report of the enquiry officer that the department in its endeavor to bring home the charge against the applicants examined Shri Jai Prakash, the complainant, as PW-1, Const. Anil Kumar as PW-2, SI Ashok Kumar as PW-3, const. Rajbir Singh as PW-4 and Inspr. K. G. Tyagi as PW-5. Jai Prakash, PW-1, deposed in tune with the complaint made by him. He stated that on 1.6.2004 a complaint was received in his society that liquor was openly being sold by the Rehariwalas of juice, Limca etc. to general public near bus stand, B-Block, Mangol Puri. On 2.6.2004 he told applicant SI Sanjay Gaur verbally about the said activities, which directed him to make a written complaint so that action could be taken. On 30.6.2004 he made a written complaint on behalf of the association to SHO/Mangol Puri copy whereof was produced on record and exhibited as PW-1/A. He also stated that on 6.6.2004 he met Shri K.G.Tyagi, SHO/Mangol Puri in this connection and on the same day at about 8.00 p.m., two persons met him while he was going home and they abused and threatened him that if he would take further action in the matter, they would not spare him. He came to know from their talks that Const. Parmender Singh and another policeman had disclosed his name and address to the Rehariwalas selling liquor in the area. They also told the Rehariwalas that he (Jai Prakash) had become a leader and that he should be taught a lesson. On 7.6.2004, 10-15 persons went to his residence in his absence and misbehaved with his family members. They left the place only after intervention of some neighbourers. These persons used to search him for several days, and to save himself he told them that he would not take any further action in the matter. Sale/supply of liquor at the above place, however, continued and he also continued to receive threats directly/indirectly. On 28.6.2004 he made a complaint to Commissioner of Police, Delhi enquiry of which was conducted by SI Ashok Kumar, Vigilance, Ashok Vihar, and his statement was recorded. On 8.7.2004 all the Reharies where liquor was being sold/supplied were removed by the local police. He also stated that after the DE was ordered against the policemen, he was pressurized through some criminal elements for making statement in their favor. In the cross examination adverted to him, he stated that when he met SHO/Mangol Puri, he had neither mentioned in his complaint nor in his written statement the names of any of the five police officers facing the DE. He could tell the names of local residents near B-Block bus stop, Mangol Puri, who had complained about the above acts of the Rehariwalas and among them was one Puran Chand. He had not mentioned the name of any Rehariwala in his complaint/statement. He admitted that there was a dispute going on in running 'Jai Mata Temple' B-Block, Mangol Puri between two parties but he was not associated with any party. He, however, admitted that the applicant SI Sanjay Gaur had sent Kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr.PC to SEM North-West and his name was there in the Kalandra which was wrongly mentioned and he had also complained in this regard to SHO, who had promised to drop his name. He stated that he had made no complaint for wrongfully implicating him in the Kalandra to SEM so far. He would not know whether proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC about the said Temple were pending in the court of SDM Saraswati Vihar. He would not like to disclose the name of the person who had told him the name of Const. Parmender about disclosing his name to Rehariwalas. He admitted that he had not mentioned the name of SI Sanjay Gaur in his earlier statement that he had made a verbal complaint to him about the illegal activities of the Rehariwalas. He had not mentioned in his complaint/statement name of any particular policemen who used to help Rehariwalas in providing/selling liquor openly. Const. Anil Kumar, PW-2, only stated that he had brought the complaint register of the police station for the year 2004 and that one complaint of Jai Prakash was diarized on 3.6.2004, which was regarding illegal acts near B-Block bus stop, Mangol Puri. The complaint was marked to HC Vijender Singh for necessary action and on receipt of his report the same was filed on 6.6.2004. SI Ashok Kumar, PW-3, stated that a complaint regarding providing of liquor and teasing of ladies near bus stop B-Block, Mangol Puri was marked to him for enquiry. He conducted the enquiry and submitted his report (Ex.PW-3/B). On enquiry it was found that there were 5/6 Reharies near B-Block bus stand where the public after purchasing liquor from the nearby government liquor shop used to purchase namkeen, soda etc. and used to drink there. He further stated that the complainant had told him that Const. Parmender had disclosed his name to the Rehariwalas and, therefore, they were threatening him. In the cross examination adverted to him, he stated that he had completed his enquiry within two days and had not recorded his arrival/departure in the daily diary while going for enquiry as a matter of routine. He further stated that no lady came in his contact during the enquiry who had complained of teasing/ harassment by the Rehariwalas or drinking liquor near those Reharies. He had visited the spot but he had not seen providing liquor by the Rahariwalas or drinking liquor near those rehires. He enquired from several persons at the spot but they did not disclose their identity. He had asked the complainant for getting the allegations verified at the spot but nothing of the sort was found happening there. No person who may claim as an eyewitness of providing/consuming liquor near Rehires was found. He admitted that there was no evidence that might have come on the file except the statement/complaint of the complainant in support of the allegations. Const. Rajbir Singh, PW-4, only proved that as per duty roster SI Sanjay Gaur, HC Vijender Singh, Const. Parmender Kumar, Ct. Satbir Singh, Ct. Rajnish Kumar, and Const. Jagbir Singh were posted at P.S. Mangol Puri on 3.6.2004. In his cross examination, he stated that he was posted at the police station for the last two years but had neither heard nor seen consuming or providing liquor etc. by Rehariwalas near B-Block bus stand, Mangol Puri to any person. Inspector K.G.Tyagi, PW-5, at the relevant time was posted as SHO/Mangol Puri. He stated that on 3.6.2004 one complaint of Jai Prakash was received and was marked to applicant HC Vijender Singh by him for enquiry. The same was with regard to sale/providing liquor by Rehariwalas and teasing of ladies near bus stop B-Block, Mangol Puri. In his cross examination, he deposed that as SHO he used to check the Rehariwalas at B-Block bus stop frequently but the illegal activities as mentioned in the complaint never came to his notice either prior to or subsequent to the complaint. He admitted that HC Vijender had recorded the statement of one Maha Narayan Mishra, member of MCD during his enquiry into the complaint and submitted his report to him and the complaint was filed. He admitted that there was a temple named 'Jai Mata Temple' in B-Block, Mangol Puri and there was a dispute in running this temple between two parties and that Jai Prakash was also one of the parties against whom a Kalandara u/s 107/150 Cr.PC was prepared by applicant SI Sanjaya Gaur, which was pending trial in the court of SDM, Kanjhawala. Jai Prakash had met him in connection with the said Kalandara and requested to delete his name therefrom, but he told him that he could not help since the matter was sub judice.
3. The applicants in their defense examined Smt. Rehana Begam as DW-1, Puran Mal as DW-2, Sunil Kumar as DW-3, Inderjeet Singh as DW-4, Dashrath Kumar Bhardwaj as PW-5, Mahavir Singh as DW-6 and Maha Narain Mishra as DW-7. The applicants thereafter submitted their written defense statements in which they raised several points as fully enumerated from pages 38 to 46 of the paper book (OA-1908/2006). While discussing the evidence the enquiry officer observed that out of the five witnesses examined by the department, only the complainant (PW-1) had supported the allegations made by him, but there were several inconsistencies in the complaint and the statement made by him. The enquiry officer then made a mention of the inconsistencies in the complaint and the statement made by the complainant. The enquiry officer also observed that in the entire deposition of PW-1 there was no mention of any defaulter police officers in the context of allowing the Rehariwalas to facilitate the sale of liquor at or near B-Block bus stand, Mangol Puri, and that he did not raise any accusing finger towards any of the defaulters. He also observed that the complainant was the secretary of Jan Jagriti Association and Shri Dashrath Kumar Bhardwaj was the president of the said association. Dashrath Kumar Bhardwaj who had been examined as DW-5 had stated that once the secretary of the association informed regarding people purchasing liquor from government liquor shop and consuming in the open. He also stated that he had checked this complaint personally and had found nothing of the sort happening. No other PW has corroborated the theory of the complainant. The evidence on file would also not establish that any Rehriwala was facilitating consumption and sale of liquor near B-Block bus stand. No PW had raised accusing finger towards any defaulter and even did not specify the misconduct on the part of the defaulters, and, therefore, mere presumption cannot be counted as evidence in the departmental enquiry. Insofar as the vigilance enquiry conducted by SI Ashok Kumar is concerned, the enquiry officer observed that the same was done in a very casual manner. The SI had not visited the place where the alleged sale/consumption of liquor was reported. He did not try to see if at all the liquor was being sold or consumed. The SI had not named his source/person who could have been examined in the DE to prove the allegation. The SI had stated in his report that there was a wine shop in FG Block, Mangol Puri, and some Rehriwalas used to sell water/lemon/eggs/non-veg items and cold drinks etc. around B-Block bus stop, and the people did purchase these items from these Reharies, but the activities as consuming liquor in open did not take place. The SI had accepted in his cross examination that he could not get any supportive evidence regarding the allegation mentioned in the complaint and his report was based on what Jai Prakash had alleged in his complaint. The enquiry officer also made a mention of the defense evidence examined by the applicants and from the cumulative effect of the evidence, came to the following conclusion:
In all fairness the defense witnesses examined during the D.F. proceedings are much sustainable against the only complaint whose credential is doubtful. In the interest of Natural justice the only deposition of the complainant that too consisting so many contradictious cannot be taken as conclusive evidence against such an un-impeachable defense. This is also worth mentioning here that the defaulters are under suspension and transferred to Distt Lines they cannot exercise any influence over the people of the locality. In fact people came forward whole-heartedly in support of the defaulters. The elected representative of the public has appeared in their defense and narrated the truth. It is very strange that only the complainant could see the Rehariwalas selling and allowing the consumption of liquor and no one else. The complainant introduced Puran Chand in his deposition to be the witness of such sale of liquor but Sh. Puran Chand/Puran Mal deposed as DW-2 against the complainant and had seen no such activities by the Rehariwalas. This fact eroded the credibility and reliability of the complainant. In the light of straight andp ointed evidence of all the DWs and SHO/Mangolpuri (PW-5) the complainant fell isolated and stood dwarfed.
It is also worth mentioning that two more constables were in Beat No. 1 and division No. 1 of P.S. Mangol Puri. Their names appeared in the statement of PW-4 as well in the duty roster Ex.PW-4/A. It is not mentioned in the report of SI Ashok Kumar as to why these constables were left out.
Taking into consideration the totality of facts, circumstances of the case, evidence on record, the credibility of the complaint has fallen flat in front of the un-impeachable defence. In the interest of Natural Justice my hands are bound to accept the defense pleas taken by the defaulters. In view of the above explained facts and charge against the defaulters will not stand.
In the conclusion drawn by him, as mentioned above, the enquiry officer held that the charge framed against the applicants was not substantiated.
4. When the matter came up before the disciplinary authority, he recorded a note of dissent-dated 10.11.2005, relevant portion whereof reads, thus:
I have carefully perused the statement of PWs/DWs as well as findings of the E.O. and found that in this case the complainant Mr. Jai Prakash, Genl. Secy Jan Jagriti Residents Association, B-Block, Mangol Puri stood firm on his stand throughout all stages of the enquiry. The complainant even approached the Sr. Officers/higher authorities for his grievances, which show that the allegations leveled in the complaint were not without weight. Further the enquiry on the matter was also got conducted through Vigilance Branch of this Distt. Where also it was established that the Rehriwallas near B-Block Bus Stop were facilitating the alcoholics, purchasing alcohol from nearby liquor shops by allowing them to consume alcohol on their rehries and providing eatables/namkeens etc. This act of rehriwalas reflects that they were hand in glove with the Div.&Beat Staff of the B-Block, Mangol Puri allowing them to run these illegal activities openly without any fear of Police. The complainant on behalf of the residents of the B-Block, Mangol Puri raised this issue being the Genl. Secy of the Resident Welfare Association despite being threatened for dire consequences for raising the cause.
The E.O. during the course of enquiry has not given due attention/weightage to the deposition made by individual witnesses. On the contrary, all weightage has been given to the statement made by the DWs. Moreover, the DWs produced by the defaulters seem to be managed by the erring police officers in their favor. I, therefore, totally disagree with the conclusion/findings of the E.O., which is totally incorrect.
The applicants represented against the note of dissent recorded by the disciplinary authority when served upon them, and raised several points for consideration of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after introduction of the case and the points raised by the applicants, observed as follows:
The plea taken by the delinquent's police officials are not tenable. The complaint filed by Sh. Jai Parkash, General Secretary, Jan Jagri Residents Welfare Association has been probed through the independent agency i.e. Vigilance Branch/NW Distt. and the allegations leveled therein have been proved and hence the complaint is not false. As regards the reputation of the complainant the same has been created by the managed D.W.s produced by the delinquents. The D.W.s produced by the delinquents in the D.E. proceedings though did not support the prosecution story but there is no reason to prove that the rehires were removed from the alleged place when the delinquents came to know that a vigilance enquiry is being conducted in the matter. The disagreement note has been duly served upon the delinquents with specific grounds of disagreeing the findings of the E.O., as per provision of rule 16(xii) (a) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. The complainant had filed the complaint after noticing the scene at the alleged place. He was not supposed to note down the names of vendors. The complainant has been examined as PW-1 during the D.E. proceedings, which has fully corroborated his complaint, which has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A and there is no reason to disbelieve the originality of the complaint. If there was no legal sale/consumption of liquor by the rehire vendors, there could have no reason to remove the rehires from the alleged place. In fact due to connivance of delinquents the rehire vendors were selling and facilitating the consumption of liquor. The SHO during his examination in DE proceedings has deposed that the instant complaint was marked by him to HO, Bijender Singh for enquiry and necessary action. Since, the complaint was very much in the knowledge of SHO/Mangol Puri and the same was entrusted to the concerned Beat Officer, there was no question that the complainant should meet him. The plea of the delinquents that SHO/Mangol Puri denied rehire vendors were facilitating consumption of liquor is not tenable. He being the supervisory officer will not intend to defame the position of the Police Station. The plea of the delinquents that the Vigilance enquiry was conducted in a casual manner and the Enquiry Officer did not visit the alleged place has no force because the Enquiry Officer (PW-3) has clearly deposed during his cross examination that he had visited the alleged place for enquiry.
The appellate authority before whom as well several points as mentioned in the memorandum of appeal were raised, however, referred only to one point pertaining to the complainant having been proceeded under Sections 107/150 Cr.PC and was thus holding a grudge against the applicants, and was an interested witnesses. Even though, this point was mentioned in the appellate order, the same has not been dealt with by the appellate authority. After just making a mention of the point aforestated, the appellate authority proceeded to observe as follows:
I have gone through all the relevant record, facts and circumstances of the case. In my judgment, the punishment of dismissal under the circumstances will be too harsh, especially in view of the fact that four out of five delinquents do not have any major punishment against them. Therefore, I think the punishment of forfeiture of their two years approved service permanently, in respect of each of them will be appropriate under the circumstances. I, therefore, modify the punishment of their dismissal to that of forfeiture of their two years approved service permanently by entailing proportionate reduction in their pay. The intervening period from the date of their dismissal to the date of issue of this order is hereby decided as dies-non on the principal of "No work no pay". The period from the date of issue of this order to the date of their joining duties may be treated as Leave of Kind Due. Their suspension period is also decided as not spent on duty.
The appellate authority, as mentioned above, held the applicants guilty of the charge but modified the punishment by specifically observing that the punishment inflicted upon them by the disciplinary authority was too harsh, especially in view of the fact that four out of five delinquents did not have any major punishment against them. The counsel representing the applicants would contend that preceding a regular departmental enquiry, a preliminary enquiry under rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred as the 1980 Rules) was conducted, and as the allegations subject matter of charge would be a cognizable offence by a police officer in his official relations with the public, prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police had to be obtained, and as it is proved from record that such an approval was not obtained, the departmental proceedings would be vitiated for non-approval of the Additional commissioner in terms of rule 15(2). The learned Counsel further contends that the note of dissent far from being a tentative one, was conclusive of the misconduct alleged against the applicants, which would not be permissible under rules, and further that it is a case of no evidence whatsoever. It is urged that the only evidence against the applicants was statement of Jai Prakash, the complainant, who was highly interested in success of the case. He had a grudge against the applicants and being an interested witness, his evidence had to be scrutinized with great deal of care and caution, and the same also required some corroboration, particularly when the same was inconsistent with the complaint made by him. Insofar as the report of SI Ashok Kumar, who conducted the vigilance enquiry, is concerned, the same could not be relied upon as the applicants were not associated with the said enquiry and further that it was based exclusively on the statement of the complainant.
5. The learned Counsel representing the respondents join issues with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the applicants as noted above. He would urge that on the available evidence a correct conclusion was arrived at by the disciplinary and the appellate authorities.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case.
7. Insofar as the first contention of the learned Counsel representing the applicants based upon rule 15(2) of the 1980 Rules is concerned, the same needs summary rejection. Concededly, reference to the preliminary enquiry is to the one conducted by SI Ashok Kumar. The same was not ordered by the disciplinary authority. That being so, no approval of the Additional Commissioner in terms of rule 15(2) was required, as held by a Full Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 340/2004 and connected matters decided on 10.5.2005 in the case of Ranvir Singh and Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Insofar as the second contention of the learned Counsel with regard to the dissenting note being not a tentative one is concerned, the same has merit. It may be recalled that the disciplinary authority while recording the note of dissent clearly observed that perusal of statements of PWs/DWs and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer would reveal that the complainant stood firm on his stand throughout all stages of the enquiry and that the matter was enquired by Vigilance Branch where also it was established that the Rehariwalas near B-Block bus stand were facilitating the alcoholics purchasing alcohol from nearby liquor shop by allowing them to consume alcohol on their Reharies and providing eatables/namkeens etc., and further that the Rahariwalas were hand-in-glove with the beat staff in running the illegal activities openly without any fear of police. He further observed that the DWs produced by the defaulters were managed by the erring police officers in their favor and, therefore, totally disagreed with the conclusion/findings of the enquiry officer being totally incorrect. The observations made by the disciplinary authority as mentioned above, cannot be termed as a tentative note of dissent. It is surely a conclusion that the allegations against the applicants stood proved. The total disagreement with the conclusion/findings of the enquiry officer, which was styled as totally incorrect, would leave no manner of doubt that the disciplinary authority, without hearing the applicants had already made up its mind that they were indeed guilty of the misconduct alleged against them. It has been consistently held by this Tribunal drawing support from several decisions of the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in terms of rule 16(xii) of the 1980 Rules, if the disciplinary authority having regard to his findings on the charges is of the opinion that a major punishment is to be awarded, it shall furnish to the accused officer free of charge copy of the enquiry report together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the enquiry report. Reference in this connection may be made to a recent decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 107/2007 " Constable Mohinder Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. decided on 25.10.2007. This Tribunal while holding that the disagreement note has to give tentative reasons for the disagreement, from which it may not appear that the disciplinary authority has made up its mind to punish the delinquent, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lav Nigam v. Chairman and MD, ITI Ltd. Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 440, which in turn based its decision upon Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra , and Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra . We are of the considered view that the disciplinary authority in the dissenting note given by it had conclusively recorded a finding of guilt by terming the report of the enquiry officer as totally incorrect. By no stretch of imagination, the disagreement note given by the disciplinary authority can be termed as tentative. What we have observed above is further clear from the punishment inflicted upon the applicants. The disciplinary authority, as mentioned above, inflicted a major and extreme punishment of dismissal from service. We are not trying to substitute our view with regard to punishment, even though it appears to us to be a case of very harsh punishment. It may be recalled that the appellate authority itself observed in its order-dated 7.8.2006 that the punishment of dismissal under the circumstances would be too harsh.
8. Insofar as the last contention of the learned Counsel with regard to there being no evidence is concerned, we are of the view that this matter needs to be gone into afresh by the disciplinary authority. Evaluation of evidence, in the first instance, is in the domain of the concerned authorities. Once, we are remitting the case to the disciplinary authority from the stage after the report given by the enquiry officer, it would be more appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case to leave this matter to be decided by the said authority only. We may, however, only observe that the disciplinary authority while first rejecting the defense projected by the applicants chose primarily to rely on the statement of the complainant and the vigilance enquiry report given by SI Ashok Kumar. The contention raised by the applicants with regard to admissibility and evidentiary value of the report and the statement of the complainant was not gone into at all. The plea raised by the applicants that the report of SI Ashok Kumar was exclusively based upon the statement of the complainant himself and that they were also not associated in the enquiry, and further that the complainant was an interested witness and his statement was full of inconsistencies and required corroboration, was also not gone into by the disciplinary authority. This exercise had to be done by the disciplinary authority, particularly when the enquiry officer had given his opinion on the aforestated issue raised by the applicants.
9. In view of the discussion made above, this OA is partly allowed. The dissenting note dated 10.11.2005 made by the disciplinary authority, its order dated 13.3.2006 dismissing the applicants from service, as also the appellate order dated 7.8.2006 modifying/reducing the punishment, are set aside. The disciplinary authority would proceed from the stage of receipt of the enquiry officer's report. The consequential relief's admissible to the applicants would abide the outcome thereof. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs.