1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1802 OF 2009 Union of India, through GM (MG), South Central Railway Secunderabad (AP) and others .. Petitioners Versus Shri Rama s/o Narayan Pundge .. Respondent Shri P.G.Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for petitioners Shri V.J.Dixit, Senior Counsel with Mrs.Sanjivani Deshmukh Ghate, Advocate for respondent-Sole CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 9th September 2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition by which the petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at its Mumbai Bench dated 22.10.2007, in Original Application No.373 of 2006 allowing the aforesaid application and quashing and setting aside the dismissal order and directing reinstatement of the present respondent together with back wages and at the same time granting liberty to the present petitioners to initiate the enquiry afresh, if so advised. 2 2. We need not dilate much on the factual aspects of the case as we are informed that the enquiry afresh has been initiated by the present petitioners and, therefore, any observations made by us by which the merit of the matter is likely to be prejudiced the authorities in the conduct of the enquiry. Suffice it to say that the Tribunal has stated at paragraph 8 of the impugned order that the Enquiry Officer had questioned the two witnesses who had been examined on behalf of the employer without affording an opportunity of cross-examination to the respondent who was the delinquent of the said enquiry. The Tribunal has further observed that the enquiry appears to be biased and the enquiry report was a cryptic report. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the request of the respondent for supplying him the documents and explaining the same in the language which he understands came to be declined by the Enquiry Officer. The Tribunal has observed that the Enquiry Officer appeared to be biased and the other independent witnesses were not examined. The Tribunal, therefore, recorded a finding that it was flagrant disregard of the principles of natural justice and quashed and set aside the findings of the Enquiry Officer and according to us rightly so. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the reinstatement of the respondent together with back-wages while giving liberty to the present petitioners of initiating afresh enquiry within six months from the date of reinstatement. 3 3. We have heard Shri Godhamgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri V.J.Dixit, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that looking to the conduct of the respondent-delinquent, the order of the Tribunal directing his reinstatement with back-wages is an unwarranted order. It is further urged before us that the respondent himself was responsible for not cross-examining the witnesses and not availing the opportunities which were afforded to him during the enquiry. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has invited our attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 4. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the order impugned in the present petition. Based on the factual averments, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the enquiry was conducted in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. No opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the respondent of cross-examining the witnesses examined on behalf of the employer for substantiating the charge. Upon perusal of the findings recorded by the Central Administrative Tribunal, according to us, no case for interference is made out. Since the Tribunal has quashed and set aside the enquiry and as the petitioner had been suspended from 1998 and thereafter had been terminated, the Tribunal has rightly ordered 4 the reinstatement of the petitioner together with back-wages. Since the enquiry was vitiated, the order of reinstatement with back-wages certainly an order which was merited in the facts of the present case. We, therefore, see no reason whatsoever for interfering with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. This petition being sans merit is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) vvr/1802.09wp