Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P.K. Khare for the appellants and Sri G.C. Sinha for the respondents. This special appeal challenges the order dated 5.8.08, by means of which, the order of dismissal from service passed separately in three inquiries has been set aside and the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. However, liberty has been given to the Insurance Corporation to pass a fresh order of punishment on the basis of two inquiries and also to hold a fresh inquiry. Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants, assailing the aforesaid order submitted that; (1) there was no procedural defect in the inquiry, but even if there was some defect in one of the inquiries separately held in which, separate orders were passed, all the punishment orders could not have been set aside merely on the presumption that it was a dismissal order passed on consideration of three inquiries cumulatively, whereas, as a matter of fact, three orders were passed separately, though on the same date but distinctly and on the basis of the separate inquiry reports; (2) even if one inquiry was found to be defective in following the procedure, the order only passed thereon could have been set aside and not rest of the orders; (3) while setting aside the order of dismissal from service and giving liberty to pass fresh order, no direction could have been issued for reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and such a direction would be against the law laid down by the apex court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vs. B. Karunakar and others (1993) 4 SCC 727. The argument is that even if one order of dismissal was to be upheld, the respondent could not be directed to be reinstated into service. Lastly, it has been submitted that a perusal of the order does not say that there is any consideration on the issues involved and points raised nor there is any finding as to what is the procedural irregularity, which has been committed by the inquiry officer in the inquiry and that there being no such finding in the inquiry report, the learned Single Judge himself has recorded a finding that from the material on record, it appears that the respondent is not guilty of embezzlement or misappropriation of fund. Submission is that the Court cannot substitute its own finding as against the finding of the inquiry officer. Sri G.C. Sinha, appearing for the respondent submitted that since one inquiry was found to be defective, therefore, the order passed cannot be assailed on the aforesaid ground and the respondent is entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits. When an order of dismissal from service is challenged by an employee, the challenge is to be based mainly and ordinarily on the following counts: (1) the punishment order has not been passed by the competent/appointing authority or the disciplinary authority; (2) there has been procedural defect in holding the disciplinary inquiry, which might have been held in violation of principles of natural justice or may suffer from any other irregularity, which affects adversely the cause of the delinquent; (3) the order of punishment for that matter has been passed as a result of bias; and (4) the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and accepted or recorded by the disciplinary/appointing authority are perverse and cannot be presumed to have been arrived at by a person of ordinary prudence on the basis of material on record and, of course, in rarest of the rare cases, the quantum of punishment can also be seen as to whether it commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved, but in view of the judgment of the apex court in the case of Government of India and another vs. George Philip (2007) SC 705, such interference would hardly be made. The order under appeal though mentions the arguments of both the sides, but it does not give any finding as to what was the procedural irregularity in respect of one disciplinary proceeding and, therefore, it is difficult for us to presume that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law or the procedure prescribed, which has resulted into prejudice to the delinquent. So far the observation that since one inquiry stands vitiated for procedural defect, the major punishment awarded cannot be sustained, suffice would be to mention that it is not a case where a common order of dismissal from service has been passed after looking into the three inquiry reports, but it is a case where three separate orders have been passed on the three inquiries and, therefore, even if one order was to be set aside, the rest two orders could not have been set aside on this ground, unless some defect in those inquiries or orders had been pointed out. Reinstatement of a delinquent in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, where the punishment is set aside not on merits, but merely on technical ground, would not allow such a delinquent to have the arrears of salary and other consequential benefits if a fresh inquiry is also to be conducted. It would create an anomalous situation if after a fresh inquiry, the delinquent is found guilty and some punishment is to be awarded as it would mean rewarding the delinquent, despite he being guilty of misconduct. A public servant against whom, proceedings for misconduct are continuing cannot be allowed to take the monetary benefits otherwise than in accordance with law. We find that though the learned Single Judge has observed that from the material on record, it appears that the respondent is not guilty of embezzlement or misappropriation of funds, but the order does not record any reason or basis for coming to such conclusion. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the charges contained in all the three charge sheets, in fact, charge the respondent of misappropriation of money realized by the respondent and that there is no finding in any of the inquiry report that he was not guilty of embezzlement, but the learned Single Judge of his own, has recorded the finding that he was not guilty of embezzlement, which is per se illegal and against the record. We do not intend to enter into these controversies as in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration by the learned Single Judge as the order thus, contains conclusion arrived by the learned Single Judge, without giving any reasons. The order which is passed without giving reason and records only the conclusions, cannot be sustained. For the reasons stated above, the special appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 5.8.08 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge having jurisdiction to consider and decide the writ petition at an early date. Since the matter is at very advanced stage, the same be listed for hearing in the month of July, 09. The matter shall remain on board till it is finally decided.;