JUDGMENT Sengupta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th March, 1985 of the Court of the First instance dismissing the writ application of the appellant. The appellant/ petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging, inter alia, the order of dismissal dated 22nd September, 1984 from his service just before seven days of his superannuation which prevented the appellant from getting any retirement benefit. 2. To appreciate the contentions raised before us, it is necessary to set out the facts briefly. 3. The appellant was holding the post of Joint Manager (Accounts) since 26th April, 1978. Since then he was attached to the office of the Joint Manager (Port Operation) of the Food Corporation of India. 4. By a Memorandum being No. 1-8/76/MD dated 20th October, 1976 Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Department of Agriculture laid down the procedure for supply of fertilizer from Central fertilizer pool, i.e., supply of imported fertilizers to different agencies. According to the said Memorandum, to enable the Food Corporation of India to supply fertilizer, allottees of fertilizer are permitted to make payment to the Food Corporation of India by opening irrevocable/revolving letters of credit. In the said Memorandum it has been further provided that credit facility of 60 days would be available also to private distributor if they purchase the minimum quantity of 100 metric tonnes at a time. The said Memorandum provides that the bills are to be preferred on the bank well in time but not later than 55th day from the date of despatch/delivery of fertilizer. On 7th May, 1981, the Deputy Manager (Accounts) of the Respondent Corporation sent a memorandum to the Dy. Manager (Movement) of the said corporation intimating, inter alia, that the second release order would be issued only on receipt of sale documents in respect of first release order. Release Order was issued by the Movement Branch without following instructions of the Head Office, Accounts Branch used to prefer bills as and when the said documents were received by the said branch and the bills were duly presented for payment within the stipulated time. 5. From the Trial Balance as on 31st March, 1982 of the respondent corporation it appears that a sum of Rs. 2,06,78,801.48 was lying outstanding mainly from three allottees, who received fertilizers from the Respondent Corporation. 5. From the Trial Balance as on 31st March, 1982 of the respondent corporation it appears that a sum of Rs. 2,06,78,801.48 was lying outstanding mainly from three allottees, who received fertilizers from the Respondent Corporation. In this connection necessary attention has been drawn to the Zonal Manager, Eastern Region of the Respondent Corporation with regard to the non-payment of price and/or recovery thereof. Several Joint Conferences with the allottees of the fertilizers were held for recovery of the price of the fertilizers supplied. 6. Thereafter on 16th June, 1983 a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Zonal Manager (East) to discuss with the said allottees in connection with the modalities for recovery of the price of fertilizers from the defaulting parties. The other authorities of the Head Office of F.C.I. were also well aware about the outstanding dues from the parties. Several meetings were held by the Zonal Manager with the local officers as also with the officers from the Head Office to find out ways and means of recoveries of the huge outstanding. At such meetings it was decided to file suits to realise the said outstandings. 7. Apprehending suspension and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him on the allegation that the petitioner is responsible for the huge outstanding from the said allottees of fertilizer, on 13th of February, 1984 the appellant moved the writ jurisdiction of this Court before Me. Justice A.K. Jana when the learned Judge was pleased to issue a Rule and an order of injunction restraining the Food Corporation of India from interfering with the appellant's functioning as Joint Manager (Accounts). Being aggrieved by such an interim order, the Respondent Corporation filed an application on 3rd July, 1984 for vacating the order dated 13th February, 1984, but no order was passed on the said application. 8. On 3rd July, 1984 the appellant was served with a charge sheet dated 19th June, 1984 through his Advocate in Court. The charges framed against the appellant are as follows :- "Shri G. Rambin while functioning as JM(A/cs) in the Office of the JM(PO), Calcutta of the Food Corporation of India from 1978 onwards, committed grave misconduct and failed to exercise proper supervision and control in the matter of realisation of the cost of pool fertilizer issued to various Govt. Agencies, sub-agents, private parties etc. Agencies, sub-agents, private parties etc. The issue of pool fertilizers to various private parties was regulated in terms of Govt. of India letter No. 23-7/75-MD dated 14.8.75 and a letter No. 1-5/76-MD dated 20.10.76. Under these instructions various procedure were enumerated for realising the cost, the manner of sending bills etc. Shri Rambin in connivance of Shri B.M. Roy, the then AM(A/cs) of his office did not object to the bills being preferred on the private parties directly instead of preferring them through the Bank as per the instructions. This situation enabled the private parties to take advantage and make default in payment of huge sums to the Corporation. This also in turn enabled the Bankers to dishonour their commitment with regard to the LC operations. As a result of this gross negligence and lack of proper financial planning and control over the matter a huge outstanding amounting to Rs. 1.69 crores was remaining unpaid as on 31.1.84 to be realised from she various private parties. Due to this act of gross negligence and lack of proper financial planning on the part of Shri Rambin, the Corporation had to file a civil suit on the original side of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta incurring huge litigation expenses." Thereafter on 12th July, 1984 the petitioner gave reply to the said purported Charge Sheet and denied and disputed the same. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said charge sheet has been issued in a closed, biased and pre-judged manner and is mala fide. It has further been contended that the said charge sheet bas been issued only to put the petitioner into harassment, just on the even of the petitioner's retirement. It was also contended that Shri P.K. Basudeba holding the post of Manager (Vigilance)-in-Charge was not an authority to issue the said charge sheet. 9. Thereafter the enquiry was held at Calcutta between 2nd and 3rd of August, 1984. It was also contended that Shri P.K. Basudeba holding the post of Manager (Vigilance)-in-Charge was not an authority to issue the said charge sheet. 9. Thereafter the enquiry was held at Calcutta between 2nd and 3rd of August, 1984. On 10th September, 1984 the appellant made a representation to the Enquiry Officer to :- a) Allow the appellant to be represented by a Lawyer inasmuch as the Presenting Officer in the case is experienced and expert in the line by virtue of his dealing/presentation of cases; b) allow the appellant inspection of relevant nothing in the documents disclosed; c) allow the appellant inspection of vigilance report; d) allow examination of the following persons as defence witnesses: i) Shri B. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-Z.M. (East) ii) Shri S.C. Bhattacharjee, Ex-J.M. (Accounts) iii) Shri K.S. Sharma, Ex-J.M./P.O. iv) Shri B.M. Roy, Ex-Asset. Manager (Accounts) 10. The reasons and relevancy of examination of the said witnesses were also stated in the said representation. The said prayer was disallowed by the Enquiry Authority contending, inter alia, that the Presenting Officer is not a legal practitioner although it is the case of the petitioner that the Presenting Officer if, an expert having legal mind. The Inquiring authority also disallowed the defence witnesses on the ground that they are not relevant and investigation report of February, 1983 was not allowed to be inspected as the same was not listed documents. 11. In view of the said observation of Inquiring authority dated 10th September, 1984 the petitioner had no alternative but to appear and participate at the enquiry under protests recording that the reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the Memo containing the Charges is illegal and not binding on the petitioner and the said charge sheet is void ab initio. The said Memorandum containing charges not being signed by the disciplinary authority and/or the competent authority is bad in law, motivated, mala fied and has been issued with a closed mind. By a letter dated September 11, 1984 the petitioner duly recorded his objection to the said Memorandum of charges not being signed by the disciplinary authority. 12. The said Memorandum containing charges not being signed by the disciplinary authority and/or the competent authority is bad in law, motivated, mala fied and has been issued with a closed mind. By a letter dated September 11, 1984 the petitioner duly recorded his objection to the said Memorandum of charges not being signed by the disciplinary authority. 12. The Enquiring authority in his proceedings dated 11th September, 1984 duly recorded the said objection and contended that such representation should have been addressed to the disciplinary authority and that it was up to the petitioner to attend the enquiry which will be proceeded with. 13. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the total five witnesses permitted by the Inquiring authority to deposit on behalf of the petitioner one Mr. S. Bhattacharyya was not available for adducing evidence on 17th September, 1984 being the day fixed for his examination as the said Shri Bhattacharyya was not feeling well and did not attend office on the 17th September, 1984. The Inquiring authority failed to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to produce the said witness on any such subsequent dates and not even on 18th September, 1984 as sought for by the petitioner. The Inquiring Authority without allowing the petitioner to lead evidence through the said witness S. Bhattacharyya-proceeded with the enquiry and shut out the petitioner from establishing his case. In the proceedings dated 17th September, 1984 the Inquiring authority recorded that it would not be possible to allow the opportunity to this witness as the enquiry cannot be prolonged. The Inquiring Authority hastily proceeded with the matter and recorded that “the defence case is therefore closed as the petitioner has not offered himself to be examined as defence witness”. It is the case of the petitioner that Inquiry authority conducted the proceedings with undue haste with material irregularity reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to present the case in support of a defence was not granted. It is the case of the petitioner that the Inquiring authority closed the petitioner's case on 17th September, 1984 without allowing the petitioner to produce his witness Sri S. Bhattacharyya and immediately thereafter proceeded to fix me date and time for advancing argument on 18th September, 1984 and called upon the parties to give a salient point of their respective arguments before 18th September, 1984. The proceedings before the Inquiring authority continued till after 5 p.m. on the 17th September, 1984 but the petitioner was compelled to give his argument immediately on the following day i.e., on 18th September, 1984. 14. By the office order dated 10th September, 1984 the petitioner has been informed that on attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner will retire from the services of the Respondent No. 1, i.e., F.C.I with effect from 30th September, 1984 afternoon but will stand relieved on 29th September, 1984 (afternoon) 30th September, 1984 being a Sunday. 15. On the 20th September, 1984 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. 16. On 22nd September, 1984 order under the signature of M.S. Yadav, Manager (Vigilance) was issued dismissing the petitioner from the service of respondent Corporation. On the 26th September, 1984 the petitioner was served with the order dated 22nd September, 1984 wherein the respondents imposed penalty of dismissal from service of the petitioner with immediate effect. The said order, as indicated earlier, has been signed by M.S. Yadav, Manager (Vigilance) who is not the competent authority. According to the petitioner under the relevant regulations the competent authority imposing a penalty of dismissal of the petitioner would be the Board or the Respondent No. 1, F.C.I. 17. On September 29, 1984 the Writ application was moved by the petitioner and Rule was issued. 18. By the judgment and order dated March 29, 1985 the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 19. The learned Judge held that the Enquiry Officer would be justified in conducting the enquiry in such a way so that its proceedings are not allowed to be unduly or deliberately prolonged. In the instant case since there was a direction of Mr. Justice Amitabha Dutta to hold the enquiry expeditiously, the rejection of the writ petitioner's prayer by the Enquiry Officer for examining 4 witnesses did not appear to be unreasonable. The learned Judge also held after considering the allegations made in the charge-sheet that the charges were not vague. She also held that the petitioner could not substantiate or justify his allegations of violation of the principles of natural justice or that the charges framed against him were vague. The learned Judge also held after considering the allegations made in the charge-sheet that the charges were not vague. She also held that the petitioner could not substantiate or justify his allegations of violation of the principles of natural justice or that the charges framed against him were vague. The learned Judge held that there was an equally efficacious remedy provided under the Food Corporation Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the petitioner having not availed of the said remedy, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. The learned Judge also proceeded to hold that the finding of the Enquiry Report which had been re-affirmed by the Managing Director did not appear to be perverse nor there was any offer of law apparent on such finding and accordingly should not sit on appeal ever such finding or enter into disputed questions of facts. She also held that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner were grave in nature which resulted in heavy damages and inconvenience to the Food Corporation of India. In the circumstances, the writ application was dismissed. 20. Before us the findings and the conclusion of the learned Judge have been assailed. We directed the respondents to produce the relevant records. Records have been produced. 21. The main contentions are that the principles of natural justice were violated, that the others who were similarly charged had been allowed to retire, their retirement benefits had also been paid and as such discrimination was made against him; that the proceedings had been completed in hot haste only to penalize the appellant and the Managing Director was not competent to impose the penalty of dismissal upon the appellant in accordance with the Staff Regulations. 22. The main contention of the appellant is that principles of natural justice have been violated in every stage of the proceedings. There are several limbs of this contention. The first contention is that assistance of a lawyer has been denied to the appellant. According to the appellant the presenting officer of the respondents is an experienced prosecutor and accordingly he asked for a lawyer to assist him. The enquiring authority rejected the prayer of the petitioner on 10th September, 1984. The learned Judge held that the writ petitioner could not establish that there had been denial of natural justice. We are, however, unable to accept this contention. The enquiring authority rejected the prayer of the petitioner on 10th September, 1984. The learned Judge held that the writ petitioner could not establish that there had been denial of natural justice. We are, however, unable to accept this contention. It is necessary to advert to the facts appearing from the records. The petitioner in his letter dated 10th September, 1984 addressed to the enquiry officer categorically pointed out as follows :- "The Presenting Officer in this case is experienced and expert in the line by virtue of his dealings of representation of cases and thus to give me reasonable opportunity for my defence, assistance of a lawyer may kindly be allowed to me, otherwise I feel, I shall not be able to get justice from your honour and the reasonable opportunity will be denied to me." 23. The Enquiry Officer passed the following order in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner in engagement of the lawyer : “His request for (engagement of a lawyer) is not within the purview of the relevant regulation inasmuch as the Regulation 58(8) which provides for engaging a legal practitioner only on the condition that the Presenting Officer is a legal practitioner or the Disciplinary Authority, having rejected to the circumstances of case so permits. Since the Presenting Officer is not a legal practitioner the question of engaging a lawyer as defence Counsel by the Charged Officer does not arise. However, he is free to engage any Central/State Government or Corporation's employee to match the experience of the Presenting Officer if he so desires. In fact he has already engaged Shri S.N. Sharma, DM(Movt) who is defending his case. If he still feels necessary he may request the Disciplinary Authority for permission to engage a legal practitioner.” 24. It will be evident from the affidavit filed by the respondents that it was not denied that the Presenting Officer was a man of vast experience dealing with such cases. The Enquiring Authority in his rejection order did not dispute that the Presenting Officer is experienced and expert in conducting disciplinary cases. 25. We are of the view that the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority should have allowed the petitioner to be assisted by a lawyer. The Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate that had the assistance of the lawyer be given to the appellant, the respondent would not have been prejudiced thereby. 25. We are of the view that the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority should have allowed the petitioner to be assisted by a lawyer. The Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate that had the assistance of the lawyer be given to the appellant, the respondent would not have been prejudiced thereby. The Presenting Officer although not a lawyer or a seasoned Police Officer, but he was a trained prosecutor, whereas the appellant had no legal training. His whole carrier was at stake. As a matter of fact in his note dated 16th August, 1984 the Enquiry Authority recorded that Md. Vikaruddin DM(G) who was the Presenting Officer is really an experienced prosecutor. In the order sheet he recorded as follows :- "Shri Mohd Vikaruddin, DM(G), who is the Presenting Officer in this case will appear before the undersigned in another case as P.O. at Jaipur from 21st to 25th August, 1984. Then again as informed by him be will appear before C.D.E. in another case at Calcutta as P.O. from 29th to 31st August, 1984. In view of the great urgency involved in this case and as desired by the Management that this enquiry be completed by 31st August, 1984 M(Vig) may kindly consider action as suggested below : (a) In the event of non-availability of Shri Mohd Vikaruddip., DM(G) who is pre-occupied during the month of August, 1984 as mentioned above, appoint another P.O." 26. This letter unmistakably points out that the Presenting Officer was a seasoned prosecutor. The charge against the appellant was quite serious entailing serious consequences which had in fact followed in this case. The questions involved in the enquiry were complicated. The appellant therefore, should have been given assistance of lawyer particularly in the context of the nature of charge and consequences thereof and the short time within which he had to prepare his defence. 27. Merely because the rule did not provide for engagement of a lawyer unless the Presenting Officer is a legal practitioner, cannot be a ground for rejection of the prayer of the appellant. This rule is not mandatory. 28. It is the discretion of the Enquiry Authority to allow the Charged Officer to engage a lawyer. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The appellant was pitted against a seasoned prosecutor. This rule is not mandatory. 28. It is the discretion of the Enquiry Authority to allow the Charged Officer to engage a lawyer. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The appellant was pitted against a seasoned prosecutor. It may also be mentioned that the Disciplinary Authority did not also consider the prayer of the petitioner for engagement of a lawyer in the proper perspective. 29. It is now too late in the day to say that the Charged Officer would not be entitled to obtain assistance of lawyer simply because the Presenting Officer is not a lawyer. 30. In (1) The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar Raghverndranath Nadkarni reported in AIR 1983 SC 109 there the Supreme Court held as follows :- “Are we charting a new course? The answer is obviously the negative. In (2) C.L. Subramaniam v. Collector of customs, Cochin, (1972) 3 SCR 485 : AIR 1972 SC 2178 , a Government employee requested the Enquiry Officer to permit him to appear through a legal practitioner and even though a trained public prosecutor was appointed as Presenting Officer, this request was turned down. When the matter reached this Court, it was held that the enquiry was in breach of the principles of natural justice. The order of the domestic tribunal was sought to be sustained on the submission that sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 lays that"........The Government servant may present his case with the assistance of any Government servant approved by the Disciplinary Authority but may not engage a legal practitioner by the purpose unless the person nominated by the Disciplinary Authority as aforesaid is a legal practitioner or unless the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits." The submission was that it is a matter within the discretion of the Enquiry Officer whether to grant permission and more so because the relevant rule fetters the claim to appear through a legal practitioner. Negativing this contention, this Court held that the fact that the case against the appellant was being handled by a trained prosecutor was by itself a good ground for allowing the appellant to engage a legal practitioner to defend him lest the scales should be weighed against him. Negativing this contention, this Court held that the fact that the case against the appellant was being handled by a trained prosecutor was by itself a good ground for allowing the appellant to engage a legal practitioner to defend him lest the scales should be weighed against him. This conclusion was recorded after reference to the earlier decisions in (3) Brooke Bond India (P.) Ltd. v. S. Subha Ramman, (1961)2 Labour LJ 417 and (4) Dunlop Rubber Co. v. Workmen ( AIR 1965 SC 1392 ). Reference was made to (5) Pett’s case, (1968)2 All ER 545, referred to earlier, but it is observed that this case has not commended itself to this Court. The earlier cases of this Court were distinguished. In our view we have reached a stage in our onward march to fair-play in action that where in an enquiry before a domestic tribunal the delinquent officer is pitted against a legally trained mind, if he seeks permission to appear through a legal practitioner the refusal to grant this request would amount to denial of a reasonable request to defend himself and the essential principles of natural justice would be violated. This view has been taken by a learned single Judge and while dismissing the appeal in limine approved by the Division Bench of the High Court commends to us. Therefore; this appeal is liable to be dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied). 31. Reliance bas also been placed in the case of (6) Anandram Jiandroi Vaswani v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1983(1) Cal LJ 8 (DB) there this Court held following the decision of the Supreme Court in C.L. Subramaniam v. Collector of Customs, Cochin reported in AIR 1972 SC 2176. "In the instant case the Presenting Officer was a Sessioned Police Officer and a trained prosecutor whereas the respondent has no legal training. The charge against the respondent is quite serious entailing serious consequences which have in fact followed in this case. Accusation against the respondent also threatened his very livelihood and any adverse verdict against him was bound to be disastrous to him as it has proved to be. The charge against the respondent is quite serious entailing serious consequences which have in fact followed in this case. Accusation against the respondent also threatened his very livelihood and any adverse verdict against him was bound to be disastrous to him as it has proved to be. Further, the questions involved in the enquiry were complicated and the inquiry also involved intricate question of law and fact for which it was necessary for the respondent to have the assistance of a lawyer particularly, in the context of the nature of charge and its consequences. In the facts and circumstances of the case we do not think assistance of another Government servant particularly when he has no legal training, afforded adequate opportunity to the respondent to defend himself. As noted earlier the respondent from time to time prayed to both Disciplinary Authority as well as the Enquiry Authority for permission to be represented by a lawyer fully setting out the ground therefor but his prayer was turned down. In such circumstances what the respondent could have been expected to do but to take assistance of another Government servant to represent him in the enquiry proceeding. In these circumstances it cannot legitimately be said that the respondent was quite content with the service of another Government servant or that he appeared in the proceeding without protest. Repeated requests of the respondent were turned down. The ground taken for refusal of the permission that the issues involved did not justify the appointment of a lawyer cannot be said to be reasonable in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the context of the charge against the respondent. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that there has been violation of Rule 14(8) of 1965 Rules which is corresponding to Rule 15(5) of 1957 Rules (which Rules are mandatory) thereby depriving the respondent of the reasonable opportunity to defend himself as guaranteed by Article 311(2) of the Constitution." 32. We are, therefore, unable to accept this contention raised on behalf of the respondents that denial of assistance of legal practitioner did not violate the principles of natural justice. In our opinion the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court referred to above would equally apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In our opinion the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court referred to above would equally apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. The refusal to allow the Appellant to be assisted by a lawyer not only amounted to violation of the Regulations, but also deprived the appellant the guarantee under Article 311(2) of the Constitution providing for reasonable opportunity of being heard. 33. There is another aspect of the matter. The Disciplinary Authority directed the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry before the retirement of the appellant. By a letter dated 11th July, 1984 the Manager (Vig. SEC) requested the Enquiring Authority to "give top-most priority and complete the enquiry by 31st August so that the Disciplinary Authority will be in a position to take further action in the matter". This fact was also recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer made his intention quite clear in the telegram issued to the appellant on 31st August, 1984, wherein it has been stated as follows : "Having carefully considered your request regret it is not possible to change venue for inspection of documents and Enquiry fixed at headquarters, New Delhi, Stop Hon'ble Calcutta High Court itself directed F.C.I. authorities to expedite disciplinary proceedings so that the same might be disposed of before your retirement. Schedule of enquiry cannot be changed also in view of my heavy engagements of other enquiries. You are directed to appear before me on 4th September, 1984 positively for inspection of Additional documents and appear for regular hearing positively on and from 11th September, 1984 as already informed earlier. Should you fail to appear on the dates mentioned above the enquiry will be proceeded further in your absence." 34. Proceedings started on 11th September, 1984 and the hearing was concluded on 18th of September, 1984. 35. Thus the lime normally required for preparing the defence was not given to the petitioner at all. One of the defence witnesses could not be examined as he was sick on the day when he was called. The appellant asked for time, but the Enquiry Officer Mr. 35. Thus the lime normally required for preparing the defence was not given to the petitioner at all. One of the defence witnesses could not be examined as he was sick on the day when he was called. The appellant asked for time, but the Enquiry Officer Mr. A.A. Faridi rejected his prayer by the following order : " 17.9.1984 New Delhi Present : Shri Mohd Vikaruddin (PO), DM(C), FCI-HO Shri S.N. Sharma (DA), DM(Movt), FCI-20, Calcutta Shri G. Rambin (CO), JM(A/cs) FCI-20, Calcutta Shri T.K. Ghosh, DZM, FCI, Calcutta as DW-4 The enquiry resumed as scheduled, Shri T.K. Ghosh, DZM, Calcutta has been examined as DW-4, cross-examined, re-examined and relieved. Shri S. Bhattacharjee, Addl. FA, FCI-HO, New Delhi did not appear again on date. An UO note has been received from his Private Secretary intimating that Shri Bhattacharjee has arrived back this morning from Calcutta but he was not keeping well and was not in a position to attend the office enquiry today. He has further requested that he may be examined as Defence witness any time on 18.9.1984. Similarly the CO has also requested that Shri Bhattacharjee who is material witness may be allowed to opper on 18.9.84. Shri Bhattacharjee was summoned earlier to appear on 14.9.84, which he could not attend due to his official pre-occupation tour to Calcutta. The CO then requested the undersigned to give an opportunity to this witness to appear on date. The opportunity was accordingly given. Now it will not be possible to give further opportunity to this witness as the enquiry cannot be prolonged. The defence case is therefore closed as the CO has not offered himself to be examined as Defence witness. The CO has been generally questioned by the undersigned. The case is now posted for arguments by Prosecution/Defence at 11-00 hrs. on 18.9.1984. Both Prosecution and Defence side are directed to give the salient points of their argument in brief in writing before the prosecution and defence arguments are commenced at above time and date. As indicated earlier proceedings started on 11th September, 1984 and the hearing was concluded on 18th September, 1984. The report was submitted on 20th September, 1984. The following nothings would indicate how the Enquiry Officer discharged his Quasi-judicial functions. VIGILANCE DIVISION Sub: Disciplinary proceedings against Shri G. Rambin involved in the Fertilizer case. As indicated earlier proceedings started on 11th September, 1984 and the hearing was concluded on 18th September, 1984. The report was submitted on 20th September, 1984. The following nothings would indicate how the Enquiry Officer discharged his Quasi-judicial functions. VIGILANCE DIVISION Sub: Disciplinary proceedings against Shri G. Rambin involved in the Fertilizer case. As the M.D. is aware, Shri. G. Rambin, Joint Manager (A/cs) against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated for the misconduct in not safeguarding the interest of the Corporation in the Fertilizer case, is retiring on 29th instant. The I.O. has already been directed to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible and till now the enquiry report has not been submitted, I have also spoken to Sri Faridi and appraised him the situation and he has promised to give the report latest by tomorrow. I am however apprising this position to the M.D. and he may also like to direct the I.O. to submit his report at once. M.S. Yadav Manager Vigilance 19.9.84. 60 I.O. to put up the report by to-morrow positively I.O. (Mr. Faridi) Sd/- Illigible 25.7 ………. 20/9/84 61 Manager (Vigilance) spoke to me about this yesterday afternoon. I have since finalised the report and already submitted to PS to MD and a copy separately to Manager (Vig) today. Sd/- Illigible 20/9/84 (A.A. Faridi) Manager Inquiry. (Emphasis supplied.) 36. The learned Judge held that the Enquiry Officer would be justified in conducting the enquiry in such a way so that its proceedings were not allowed to be unduly or deliberately prolonged. In the instant case there was a direction from Mr. Justice Amitava Dutta to hold the enquiry expeditiously. Under the circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner's prayer by the Enquiry Officer did not appear to be unreasonable. 37. We are, however, unable to accept this reasoning. Mr. justice Dutta did not give any direction that the enquiry should be completed without giving the petitioner any reasonable opportunity of being heard. He only directed that the enquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible. There is no question of unduly or deliberately prolonging the proceedings. One of the defence witnesses was sick and he was the officer of the F.C.I. Accordingly the appellant asked for time. From the record it would appear that the writ petitioner did never make unreasonable request for adjournment. There is no question of unduly or deliberately prolonging the proceedings. One of the defence witnesses was sick and he was the officer of the F.C.I. Accordingly the appellant asked for time. From the record it would appear that the writ petitioner did never make unreasonable request for adjournment. Even if there was a direction for expeditious disposal of tile proceeding, it ought not to be disposed of without complying with the essential requirements of principles of natural justice. In this case the Disciplinary Authority directed the Enquiring Officer to complete the enquiry by 31st August, 1984 and thereafter the hearing was concluded by the Enquiry Officer without even allowing one the material defence witnesses to be examined. The Disciplinary Authority directed for submission of enquiry report within 24 hours. By giving direction to pass the order within a specified time resulted in mis-carriage of justice as the Enquiring Authority had no other alternative, but to refuse adjournment. Not only that the petitioner could not get sufficient time to deliberate but the Enquiring Authority also did not get reasonable time to consider the evidence. The hearing was concluded on 18th September, and the Enquiring Officer was directed to submit his report by 20th September which he did. These facts would amply demonstrate that the Enquiring Authority surrendered his judgment and independence to the Disciplinary Authority. It is so to say a command performance of the Enquiring Authority at the behest and instance of the Disciplinary Authority. The inquiry officer was compelled to complete the inquiry at the direction of the disciplinary authority before the appellant retired without considering whether this would deny the appellant reasonable opportunity of hearing in the proceedings. It is fundamental principle of natural justice that justice should not only be done but it must also be seen to he done. The facts narrated hereinbefore would demonstrate clearly the manner in which the inquiry was conducted in hot haste. The hot haste in which the inquiry was completed within six days would only confirm the apprehension of the petitioner that justice would be denied to him. In fact it was denied. There is no room for doubt that essential principles of natural justice had been violated in this ease and the appellant did not get any reasonable opportunity of defending himself. 38. In fact it was denied. There is no room for doubt that essential principles of natural justice had been violated in this ease and the appellant did not get any reasonable opportunity of defending himself. 38. It is then contended that the defence witnesses as named by the appellant were not examined by the Enquiring Authority resulting in miscarriage of justice. 39. The learned Judge observed that the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it would appear that the writ petitioner was not only given the opportunity of examining himself but also to examine other witnesses. In fact he examined three witnesses on his behalf, although the witnesses were the employees of the F.C.I., but in absence of address they could not identified and/or located. Apart from that Enquiry Authority was of the view that the evidence of that witness was not relevant. The learned Judge was of the view that although originally sufficient opportunity had been given to the Charged Officer to prove his case and call his witnesses, but subsequent adjournment for the purpose of calling other four witnesses on the ground that this was not relevant was refused. Further the Enquiry Officer was directed to complete the enquiry expeditiously and accordingly the time was not given and that would not amount to denial of natural justice. 40. We are afraid, the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Judge can not be sustained. 41. By letter dated 27th August, 1984 the appellant not only named the defence witnesses but also indicated reasons why he was calling those persons as witnesses. The said letter is as follows : "Partial list of additional documents required by me was sent from here on 10.8.84. I could have decided the Defence witnesses after going through these documents but I have been denied that opportunity and I have been asked to send the names of defence witnesses vide your No. telex dated 18.8.84 and I have been asked to go to Head Office, New Delhi to see the documents on 4.9.84 und 5.9.84 only. Thus reasonable opportunity has not been given to me. However, I mention below the names of Defence Witnesses provisionally. 1. Shri D. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-Zonal Manager (East), 2. ,, S. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Financial Adviser, 3. ,, S.C. Bhattacharjee, Ex-Joint Manager (A/cs.) 4. ,, T.K. Ghosh, Dy. Zonal Manager (East), Cal. 5. Thus reasonable opportunity has not been given to me. However, I mention below the names of Defence Witnesses provisionally. 1. Shri D. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-Zonal Manager (East), 2. ,, S. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Financial Adviser, 3. ,, S.C. Bhattacharjee, Ex-Joint Manager (A/cs.) 4. ,, T.K. Ghosh, Dy. Zonal Manager (East), Cal. 5. ,, K.S. Sharma, Ex-Joint Manager (PO), FCI, Calcutta. 6. ,, A. Shivaprakasham, the then Dy. Manager (A/cs.) Cal. 7. ,, B.M. Roy, the then Asstt. Manager (A/cs.) J.M. (PO) Officer, FCI, Cal. 8. ,, J.N. Mazumder, Asstt. Manager (A/cs.), JMPO's office. 9. ,, K. Talwar, Addl. Financial Adviser, H.O. New Delhi. Sl. Nos. 1 & 4 will sustain the action taken for realisation of amount by holding meetings from time to time. Sl. Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 will sustain the system regarding submission of bills to Party directly. Sl. No. 8 will sustain about the realisation of amount of some bills and also about the action taken for realisation of amount. Sl. No. 9 will sustain the system of revolving L.C. Further list of additional documents and further names of witnesses will be submitted on 4.9.84 at Head Office. New Delhi at the time of inspection of documents. Sd/- G. Rambin Enclo : As above. Joint Manager (A/cs.) Copy to : 1. Mohd. Vikaruddin, Dy. Manager (General Vigilance)/Presenting Officer, Food Corporation of India, Head Office, 16-20 Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 for information and necessary action. 2. The Joint Manager (Vig. & Sec.) Food Corpn. of India, Z.O. Calcutta. Sd/- On 31st August 1984, the Enquiry Authority passed the following order : 31.8.1984 "The list of defence witnesses has since been received New Delhi from the C.O. and it appears at S138/of. Having considered the relevancy of each witness the following orders are passed : Sl. 1 & 4 : S/Shri B. Mukhopadhyay Since the C.O. has given the same Ex-ZM(East) and T.K. purpose/relevancy for the above two Ghosh, DZM (East) witnesses, therefore, the presence of one witness, Shri T.K. Ghosh, DZM (East) is deemed to be sufficient and allowed. Sl. 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 : Namely S/Shri S. For producing all the above Bhattacharjee, S.C. witnesses, the C.O. has given the Bhattacharjee, K.S. same purpose/relevancy in each case. Sharma, A. Shivaprakasham Moreover, S/Shri S.C. Bhattacharjee and B.M. Roy. Sl. 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 : Namely S/Shri S. For producing all the above Bhattacharjee, S.C. witnesses, the C.O. has given the Bhattacharjee, K.S. same purpose/relevancy in each case. Sharma, A. Shivaprakasham Moreover, S/Shri S.C. Bhattacharjee and B.M. Roy. and K.S. Sharma at sl 3 & 5 have since retired from service and their addresses have not been given by the C.O. Therefore these two witnesses are not allowed. Sri B.M. Roy, the then AM (A/cs) JM(PO), Calcutta indicated against sl. 7 is the co- accused in the same case in which the C.O., Shri Rambin is alleged to be involved. Therefore, the presence of Shri B.M. Roy as defence witness is also not allowed. Shri S. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Financial Adviser, FCI-HQ and Shri A. Shrivaprakasham, DM(A/cs) presently working at JM(PO) Madras indicated at sl 2 and 6 respectively are allowed to appear as Defence witnesses. Sl. 8 : Shri J.N. Majumdar, is allowed as Defence AM(A/cs), JM(PO) witness. Calcutta Sl. 9 : Shri K. K. Talwar, is also allowed to appear Addl. F. A. FCI-HQ as Defence witness. Notice for appearance to the above officers who have been allowed as Defence witnesses by the undersigned may be issued today positively. In addition, telex also issue to the Controlling Authorities to direct these officers to appear on due date and time. Copy of this order sheet may be given to PO/M(Vig) as also to the C.O. for information and necessary action. Sd/- A.A. Faridi 31.8.84 Inquiring Authority 41. The petitioner felt aggrieved. Immediately he wrote to the enquiring officer indicating the reasons why be wanted those witnesses. His letter is as follows : "In reply to my telegram and post copy of the same dated 27.8.84 you have disallowed my following defence witnesses: 1. Shri B. Mukhopadhyay, EX-ZM(East) 2. Shri S.C. Bhattacharjee, EX-JM(A/cs) 3. Shri K.S. Sharma, Ex-JM/PO 4. Shri B.M. Roy, Ex-Asstt. Manager (A/cs) The relevancy of all the defence witness given by me was in broad terms and examination of all the witness is absolutely essential. As far as Shri B. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-ZM(E) is concerned I may record that he being the then ZM had complete knowledge of the case and was holding discussions/meetings from time to time on the subject. Therefore, he is in fact my main witness on whose disclosure only the true picture of the case shall be placed before you. As far as Shri B. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-ZM(E) is concerned I may record that he being the then ZM had complete knowledge of the case and was holding discussions/meetings from time to time on the subject. Therefore, he is in fact my main witness on whose disclosure only the true picture of the case shall be placed before you. S/Shri S.C. Bhattacharjee and K.S. Sharma actually gave orders for sending bills to the party directly. Shri Bhattacharjee had also entered into correspondences about payment of stamp duty which is relevant for sending bills to the party. Their witness is essential. Although these officers retired from service their addresses will be available in HQ from where they were finally settled. Shri B.M. Roy, actually initiated the note for sending bills to the party and hence his witness is absolutely essential. By disallowing the above defence witnesses I am being denied the reasonable opportunity for my defence. I am not in a position to appear in the enquiry unless all the reasonable opportunities are given to me." 42. On 10th September, 1984 the Enquiry Authority passed the following order on the said request of the petitioner for calling defence witnesses :- "The request of allowing defence witnesses was considered by the carefully at an appropriate stage and certain witnesses cited by the Charged Officer were not allowed after considering the relevancy given by the Charged Officer. The Charged Officer has now stated that the relevancy given by him earlier was in broad terms and he has now explained that he wants to examine those officers as defence witnesses. I still maintain that S/Shri S.C. Bhattacharjee and K.S. Sharma are not relevant. Besides the Charged Officer has not been able to furnish their present addresses. As regards B.M. Roy my order dated 31.8.84 stands Shri Mukhopadhyay has been cited stating that being ZM at the material time he had full knowledge of the case and was holding discussions/ meetings from time to time. I am not convinced that if Shri Mukhopadhyay has got full knowledge of the case by virtue of his being Zonal Manager he should be summoned. The Charged Officer has even now not indicated what particular issues he will help in clarifying in the injury. A copy of this may be given to the P.O./C.O. and Manager (Vig.)." 43. I am not convinced that if Shri Mukhopadhyay has got full knowledge of the case by virtue of his being Zonal Manager he should be summoned. The Charged Officer has even now not indicated what particular issues he will help in clarifying in the injury. A copy of this may be given to the P.O./C.O. and Manager (Vig.)." 43. The Inquiring Authority by several letters dated 31st August, 1984 addressed to J.N. Majumdar, A. Shivaprakasham, T.K. Ghosh, K.K. Talwar and S. Bhattacharjee informed them as follows :- "I am the Inquiring Authority in the proceedings against G. Rambin. Your evidence is considered material." I request you to appear before me on the day and at the time place indicated above." 44. Shri J.N. Majumdar, Shri A. Shivaprakasham and Shri T.K. Ghosh were requested to appear on the 13th September, 1984 whereas Shri K.K. Talwar and Shri S. Bhattacharjee were requested to appear on the 14th September, 1984. The request of the petitioner for production of the witnesses was refused by the Inquiring Authority without any justification. It was not for him to decide as to whether a particular witness was relevant for the purpose of establishing the defence of the delinquent officer or not. The delinquent officer is at liberty to select his own defence witnesses. The Inquiring Authority cannot decide whether such witness is material or not. Whether presence of one witness is sufficient or not is not also for the Inquiring Authority to decide. The Department had the addresses of those persons named as defence witnesses and had since retired. After the retirement they are to obtain the retirement benefits from the Food Corporation of India and accordingly the addresses of those retired persons must have been known to the department. The Inquiring Authority could have ascertained the addresses from the department and issued letters of request to them far appearing before the Inquiry Authority. He could have also asked the appellant to furnish their addresses. It was not the appellant to how which of the officers had retired. The fact that B.M. Roy is a co-accused is not relevant consideration in not calling him as a defence witness. What weight could have been given to his evidence is another matter but the Inquiring Authority should have considered his evidence also. But that was not done. It was not the appellant to how which of the officers had retired. The fact that B.M. Roy is a co-accused is not relevant consideration in not calling him as a defence witness. What weight could have been given to his evidence is another matter but the Inquiring Authority should have considered his evidence also. But that was not done. According to the Inquiry Officer himself, as we indicated earlier, the presence of S. Bhattacharjee, a Senior Officer of F.C.I. was material. In other words, he was a material witness for the defence. Even on the ground of his illness no adjournment was given for a single day. He could not, therefore, depose at the inquiry. In our view the refusal to call witnesses named by the appellant on the ground that their evidence is not relevant or one witness would be enough for the purpose of proving a particular issue vitiates the inquiry proceeding. The refusal of adjournment for examination of S. Bhattacharjee who fell sick on the scheduled date has also violated the minimal requirement of the principles of natural justice. The expedition of the proceeding cannot be at the cost of the justice. The proceedings were initiated in July, 1984 on the basis of report made in February, 1983. The delay was attributable to the authorities. Because the petitioner would retire did not mean that somehow or other the proceedings should be completed so that the penalty can be imposed without having any regard to the principles of fair play and justice. 45. It is then contended that the inspection of the vital documents was not given to the writ petitioner. The learned Judge held that the documents sought for by the writ petitioner had been given inspection to by the Enquiry Officer and as such there could be no grievance of the writ petitioner that there had been any violation of the principles of natural justice. We are unable to accept this conclusion of the learned Judge. It is necessary to set out the correspondence that passed between the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer to demonstrate whether the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the very vital documents were not given to the petitioner has any substance or not. We are unable to accept this conclusion of the learned Judge. It is necessary to set out the correspondence that passed between the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer to demonstrate whether the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the very vital documents were not given to the petitioner has any substance or not. In August the petitioner wrote as follows:- "Kindly refer to my letter dated 3.8.84 handed over to your Presenting Officer, in which I mentioned that it is not possible to submit the list of additional documents and list of defence witness within 10.8.84 and I prayed for 15 days’ time. However, I am sending you partial list of additional documents and partial list of defence witness. I shall submit further list of documents and defence witness shortly." Enclo: As stated. 46. The annexure contained description of 17 documents. We are only concerned with the last documents which is the Vigilance Branch report dated February, 1983. 47. The prosecution objected to the production of those additional documents. The Presenting Officer wrote : “As desired by you on 14.8.84, I am submitting my objections on the additional documents sought for by Shri G. Rambin as under :- Shri G. Rambin against Item No. 17 has asked for the Vigilance Branch Report of February, 1984 with Headquarters. No such report has been cited by the prosecution side hence it is not admissible. The relevancy given against other item i.e., Item Nos. 1 to 16 is very brief. However, document cited at Serial Nos. 14 to 16 appears to be completely irrelevant to the case. Sd/- Mohd. Vikaruddin Dy. Manager (Presenting Officer) Manager (Inquiry) 16.8.84." 48. By the letter dated 20th August, 1984 the petitioner informed the Enquiry Officer as follows :- Sub: List of Additional Documents in connection with Disciplinary proceedings against Shri G. Rambin, Join, Manager (Accounts). Kindly refer to my registered letter dated 10.8.1984 under which partial list of additional documents was sent to you. I have not yet been supplied with the documents from your end. To give me reasonable Opportunity I should have been supplied with the documents by this time so as to prepare my defence. I request you to kindly supply me documents urgently." 49. But the Inquiry Authority allowed the inspection of the documents from Serial Nos. 1 to 16. I have not yet been supplied with the documents from your end. To give me reasonable Opportunity I should have been supplied with the documents by this time so as to prepare my defence. I request you to kindly supply me documents urgently." 49. But the Inquiry Authority allowed the inspection of the documents from Serial Nos. 1 to 16. So far as the Vigilance Report is concerned, the Inquiring Authority intimated to the petitioner that this document has neither been cited by prosecution nor was the relevancy given by the petitioner and as such the same has not been allowed. 50. On 5th September, 1984, the appellant wrote to the Enquiry Officer as follows: "I most humbly draw your kind attention to your telex message No. M(INQ)/Vig/GR/84 dated 18/21.8.1984 received by me on 23.8.1984 informing me that document at S. No. 17 is not allowed to be shown. In this connection I once again submit that subject document is a basic document, a report submitted by the Vigilance Division of Hq. in February, 1983 on the basis of which, in fact, charges were framed against me. Therefore, by and large it is a FIR. Under the law of the land CO is entitled to receive a true copy of the report on which the charges are being framed. I, therefore, once again pray that the report submitted by Vigilance Division of Hq. in February, 1983 be supplied to me” 51. By a letter dated 10th September, 1984, the petitioner reiterated his grievances as follows : "The presenting officer in the case is experienced and expert in the line by virtue of his dealing/presentation of cases and thus to give me reasonable opportunity for my defence, assistance of a lawyer may kindly be allowed to me otherwise I feel I shall not be able to get justice from your honour as the reasonable opportunity will be denied to me. I requested for the inspection of relevant nothings of the additional documents but was disallowed because there was no mention. I record with all belief and knowledge that in Corporation/Govt. Offices the documents dealt with in the file cannot be read/understood without its relevant notings and as such the word 'noting' was not mentioned. In fact, it was not necessary. I requested for the inspection of relevant nothings of the additional documents but was disallowed because there was no mention. I record with all belief and knowledge that in Corporation/Govt. Offices the documents dealt with in the file cannot be read/understood without its relevant notings and as such the word 'noting' was not mentioned. In fact, it was not necessary. I, therefore, reiterate once again that if the relevant notings of the allowed documents are not shown to me, I feel, I am debarred from putting up my case before, you or facts which are available on the notings. I reiterate for inspection of vigilance report of Feb., 83 as asked for earlier and was disallowed by your honour. In order to defend me properly and effectively I require inspection of this report in the absence of which I feel I am being denied justice." 52. The Enquiry Authority rejected his prayer in the following terms : "Regarding sl. 2 (for allowing the relevant notings in the document') the Charged Officer was cold on the date of preliminary hearing itself that while submitting the list of additional documents he should give full description of each document and their relevancy. On receipt of the list of additional documents the undersigned has already allowed the relevant documents which have duly been inspected by the Charged Officer. He has subsequently after inspection of the documents made a request to the effect that the relevant notings pertaining to the documents allowed may also be furnished to him for inspection. The request was already considered by me and it was rejected since the same was not made at the appropriate stage and above all no relevancy could be furnished by the Charged Officer of these notings and such request without relevancy cannot be considered. Even now in his present representation the Charged Officer has failed to give the relevancy about the notings sought for." "Regarding sl. 3, the investigation report of February, 1983 being sought for by the defence side is not a listed document and such fact finding reports cannot be allowed as defence documents unless the same are cited by the prosecution side as the listed document." 53. It appears that on 20th February, 1983 a report was submitted by the Vigilance Division. The Enquiry Authority took time for more than a year to initiate proceedings against the petitioner and others. It appears that on 20th February, 1983 a report was submitted by the Vigilance Division. The Enquiry Authority took time for more than a year to initiate proceedings against the petitioner and others. On the contrary the appellant was associated with the committee at Calcutta to negotiate with the parties which would appear from the minutes of the meeting dated 16th June, 1983 under the Chairmanship of the Zonal Manager. 54. It appears from the records that on 16th June, 1983 a meeting was held wherein the following persons were present:- F C I represented by :- 1. Shri T.K. Ghosh, Dy. Zonal Manager. 2. Shri Ramachandran, Manager (Fin & A/cs). 3. Shri Jasbir Singh; Manager (Fert) HO, MD. 4. Shri T.K. Seth, Manager (Fin), HO, MD. 5. Shri S.C. Majumder, Joint Manager (PO). 6. Shri G. Rambin, Joint Manager (Fin & A/cs). 7. Shri N.K. Verma, Jt. Manager (Legal), ZO, Cal. 8. Shri S.K. Dutta, Dy. Manager (Movt.), JM (PO), Cal. 9. Shri K.M. Adhikary, Dy. Manager (A/cs), JM(PO), Cal. 10. Shri J.N. Majumder, Asset. Manager (A/cs), JM(PO), Cal. 55. In the above meeting representatives of M/s. B.K., Roy (P) Ltd., M/s. Pallishree (P) Ltd, and M/s. Nandy Dey (P) Ltd. were also present. The Minutes of the said meeting are reproduced below :- "Zonal Manager (East) at the outset stated that the purpose of today's Meeting was to find out the solution in settling the long outstanding dues of Food Corporation of India. He further stated that the counter claims of the parties were examined but excepting road re-imbursement bills other claims like rail shortage, road shortage and price difference were not tenable and acceptable. He expressed that maximum allowance which could be extended to the parties was that the penal interest would be waived on the admissible RTC bills from the date of their receipt. That would reduce the outstanding burdens of the parties to a great extent. The parties had insisted upon reconciliation of Accounts since 1976-77 but Shri Seth, Manager. (Fin) of HO explained that the party should consult their own accounts and only the specific cases where they have paid in excess of the cost of the quantity delivered can be sent to J.M. (PO) for refund. The parties had insisted upon reconciliation of Accounts since 1976-77 but Shri Seth, Manager. (Fin) of HO explained that the party should consult their own accounts and only the specific cases where they have paid in excess of the cost of the quantity delivered can be sent to J.M. (PO) for refund. Zonal Manager requested the parties for execution of Bank Guarantee covering the outstanding FCI's dues at the earliest so that the business relation between the parties and FCI could be properly maintained and that on receipt of the Bank Guarantee FCI would consider issuing Fert. stocks on pre-payment basis. It was also mentioned that M/s. B.K. Roy (P) Ltd. & M/s. Pallishree (P) Ltd. had agreed to execute the Bank Guarantee Bond and asked for a form for the purpose from the FCI. Accordingly forms duly approved by the FCI were handed over to them in April, 83 but they have not yet given the executed bond to the FCI. Shri T.K. Seth, Manager (Fin) had also assured the parties that the road re-imbursement bills of the parties would be settled as soon as possible. JM(PO) had pointed out the difficulties in regard to distance certificates as BDOs of the State Government were not looking after agricultural side now a days and stopped issuing such certificates. So certificate issued by AEO/SDAO should be accepted. The West Bengal Government also has requested FCI to accept the certificate issued by AEO/SDAO vide their letter No. 1129-Impt/12E(Inpt)-52/71 dt. 14.4.83. Manager (Fort) agreed to the proposal and promised to send the confirmation after consulting Agricultural Ministry. The Party had insisted upon accepting their shortage claims and price difference claims but Dy. Zonal Manager stated that these claims were not acceptable and that Rs. 46 thousand as against 31.59 lakhs of M/s. Pallishree (P) Ltd. & Rs. 13 thousand out of 12 lakhs of M/s. B.K. Roy (P) Ltd. were found to be refundable. The detailed statements showing refunds of S.T. have already been sent to the parties. JM(PO) & JM(A/cs) had asked Shri Mallick of M/s. Nandy Dey (P) Ltd. to arrange payment of Rs. 4 lakhs immediately so that the facility of delivery of fertiliser on pre-payment basis could be considered. Shri B.K. Roy mentioned that he would further meet the Zonal Manager on 21.6.83 in this regard and would intimate their views." 56. JM(PO) & JM(A/cs) had asked Shri Mallick of M/s. Nandy Dey (P) Ltd. to arrange payment of Rs. 4 lakhs immediately so that the facility of delivery of fertiliser on pre-payment basis could be considered. Shri B.K. Roy mentioned that he would further meet the Zonal Manager on 21.6.83 in this regard and would intimate their views." 56. On 28th November, 1983 another meeting was also held where the Zonal Manager, Manager (F & A), Dy. Zonal Manager etc. as well as the representatives of the two of the parties were present. There also the question of settlement was discussed. The minutes of the said meeting, inter alia, are as follows :- "Initiating the meeting, Zonal Manager mentioned that during the last meeting on 16.6.83, it was decided that the party would execute Bank Guarantee covering the entire amount due to FCI at the earliest and thereafter FCI would consider the request for issue of fertilizer stocks on pre-payment basis and though a considerable period has elapsed the parties have not yet executed any Bank Guarantee. The representative intimated that be has already approached the Bank and the ceiling limit of Rs. 50 lakhs has been approved by the Bank authority and they were trying to obtain B/Gs as early as possible. The party also mentioned that the manner FCI had issued the letter he had every doubt whether Bank authority would agree for executing the B/Gs. The party wanted to issue the letter in such a manner so that on the basis of the certificate they could obtain the B/Gs. ZM mentioned that FCI can issue letters based on facts only. He further mentioned that the party should obtain B/Gs on the properties of the business concerned etc. and if they try to obtain B/Gs on that basis, it would not be difficult for them to obtain the same. The party informed that their bills have not yet been passed and if any bills are rejected the same should be sent back to them and they have not been informed how many bills have been passed and how many bills could not be passed showing reasons thereof so that they could verify the same from their records. JM(PO) intimated that some of the Bills which had been rejected, have been handed over to the representatives of the parties intimating the reasons for rejection. JM(PO) intimated that some of the Bills which had been rejected, have been handed over to the representatives of the parties intimating the reasons for rejection. The party also informed that they would get price difference as per order of Bombay High Court but DZM intimated that till now no order has been issued by the Ministry. The party requested to deliver the stocks to them on pre-payment basis so that by selling the stock they can pay to FCI for the arrears. ZM clarified that in the first meeting of the high power committee it was intimated to the party that they should arrange for the Bank Guarantee first and only thereafter would consider whether stock would be delivered to them on pre-payment basis. But since the party could not arrange for the Bank Guarantees, it is not possible to consider whether to deliver the stock till the same is arranged. The party wanted to consult with his Managing Director and intimate the final position about the Bank Guarantees in the afternoon. ZM intimated him that he should come to Zonal Office after such consultation at 4 P.M. The party came along with the Managing Director and informed that they would try to submit the Bank Guarantee as early as possible. ZM intimated that they must submit the B/Gs within 31st December, 1983 positively failing which we may be forced to take the help of law and other recourses. After the departure of the parties, Manager (Fert) requested JMPO to process the case for taking legal actions and submit the proposal to HQ through ZM along with all relevant papers, before 15th December, 83, so that MD's approval can be sent at the earliest for taking legal action against the parties if they fail to submit the B/Gs within the stipulated time." 57. But nowhere any responsibility was fixed on the petitioner. The said two meetings were held after the report had been submitted by the Vigilance Division. 58. The said report of the Vigilance Division formed the basis on which the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and other several officers. Be it recorded that inspite of several opportunities given to the respondents, the said report was not made available to this Court. 59. It (further appears that reference was made to the FCI authorities for launching criminal case. The matter was also referred to the CBI authorities. Be it recorded that inspite of several opportunities given to the respondents, the said report was not made available to this Court. 59. It (further appears that reference was made to the FCI authorities for launching criminal case. The matter was also referred to the CBI authorities. The CBI authorities however, informed the FCI that facts did not disclose any material for initiation of criminal proceeding, lapses, if any, could be dealt with departmentally. The actions which were initiated by the FCI was on the basis of the said report. The Corporation also filed several suits against the persons for realization of the dues. The Enquiry Officer did not allow the said document on the ground that this was not relied by the prosecution. It is for the prosecution to establish the case made against the Charged Officer, but the Charged Officer may also endeavour to show his innocence by relying on certain documents. Since this report formed basis of initiation of the proceedings against several officers including the writ petitioner, it was incumbent on the part of the Enquiring Authority to allow inspection of the said report. The learned Judge observed that the petitioner failed to prove his case. It is now well settled that onus lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the Charged Officer and it is obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to allow the documents asked for by the Charged Officer. Although such documents may not have been relied on by the prosecution or by the Enquiry Officer, the refusal on the ground that it was not listed as a document by the prosecution is not proper. As a matter of fact even after the said report was made, the petitioner was associated with the Committee at Calcutta for suggesting ways and means for realization of the outstanding dues. The enquiry proceeding in our view was initiated at the instance of the Disciplinary Authority only to find out a scape goat and to absolve the Senior Officers from any liability. In our view the withholding of the said report has denied the appellant a reasonable opportunity of defending himself which vitiated the enquiry. 60. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that requirement of principles of natural justice has not been complied with in this case. In our view the withholding of the said report has denied the appellant a reasonable opportunity of defending himself which vitiated the enquiry. 60. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that requirement of principles of natural justice has not been complied with in this case. The relevancy of the documents was not for the Enquiring Authority to decide. If any delinquent feels that a particular document would help him to establish his innocence or to build up his defence, the Enquiring Authority cannot refuse such document to him on the ground that it was not relevant. Further as indicated earlier, the proceedings were completed in hot haste and accordingly the question of asking the documents at an earlier stage of the proceedings did not arise. The investigation report which has not been, however, disclosed before this Court would have certainly shown whether any involvement of the petitioner was there or not. It appears to us by reason of withholding of the documents, the appellant was seriously prejudiced and he did not get reasonable opportunity in defending himself in the enquiry proceedings. 61. A contention was raised before the learned Judge that the writ petitioner having not exhausted the remedy provided under the FCI Regulations could not be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court. The learned Judge accepted the said contention of the respondents and held that alternative remedy had not been availed of by the writ petitioner, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 62. It has also been contended by Mr. Mitra, learned Counsel for the FCI before us that under section 45 of the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964 the Food Corporation of India is Authorized to make Regulations with a previous sanction of the Central Government by Notification in the Official Gazette and Staff Regulations, 1971 were so framed and Regulation 68 provides for against which order an Appeal lies. Regulation 68(ii) provides for an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Regulation 54 whether made by the disciplinary authority or by any Appellate Authority. Regulation 69 provides who are the Appellate Authorities; Regulation 70 provides for the period of limitation for appeal. Regulation 71 provides for the form and contents of Appeal. Regulation 68(ii) provides for an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Regulation 54 whether made by the disciplinary authority or by any Appellate Authority. Regulation 69 provides who are the Appellate Authorities; Regulation 70 provides for the period of limitation for appeal. Regulation 71 provides for the form and contents of Appeal. Regulation 72 provides for what the Appellate Authority will consider and Appendix 2 of the said staff Regulations provides for who are the Competent Authorities to impose the penalties and who is the Appellate Authority. By Notification No. 9-2/79-EP dated 10th February, 1981, the Food Corporation of India (Staff), Regulations, 1971 were amended whereby the Managing Director is made the Appointing Authority in respect of Category-I Officer and the Managing Director has been declared as the Competent Authority to impose all penalties and the Chairman has been declared as the Appellate Authority. The appellant was a II category-1 officer. 63. His contention is that since there is a specific statutory remedy, the appellant should have preferred and appeal under the said Regulation 68(ii) before the Chairman who is an Appellate Authority. 64. He has further submitted that the said Regulation provides for a complete machinery to challenge the said Order of dismissal. When a Statute has given a special remedy that remedy provided by the Statute must be availed of and without availing himself of the said statutory remedy by the appellant the writ petition filed by the appellant is not maintainable. In this connection there is a decision in the case (7) Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & Another v. Sate of Orissa & Another reported in AIR 1983 SC at page 603 where the Supreme Court inter alia held that : "The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a Statute which gives a special remedy for endorcing it, the remedy provided by the Statute only must be availed of." 65. In the instant case the Appellant did not avail himself of preferring an appeal under Regulation 68(ii) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation Act, 1971. 66. In the instant case the Appellant did not avail himself of preferring an appeal under Regulation 68(ii) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation Act, 1971. 66. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case the appellant did not prefer an appeal as provided in the Statute under Regulation 68(ii) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations Act, 1971 and on this ground alone the Appeal should be dismissed. 67. We are, however, unable to accept this contention. It is true that an appeal is provided under FCI Regulations. But when the order is vitiated because of non compliance with the principles of natural justice, the writ petitioner can invoke the writ jurisdiction. In this case, as we have already indicated, the main grievance of the writ petitioner was with regard to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice at every stage of the enquiry proceeding. We upheld the contention of the appellant. Accordingly the order of dismissal is illegal and void. In such a case the writ petitioner is entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction. We may usefully refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court in this connection. In (8) A.V. Venkateswaran v. R.S. Wadhwani reported in AIR 1961 SC 1506 at page 1508 there the Supreme Court held as follows :- "The only point, therefore, requiring to be considered is whether the High Court should have rejected the writ petition of the respondent in limine because he had not exhausted all the statutory remedies open to him for having his grievance redressed. The contention of the learned Solicitor-General was that the existence of an alternative remedy was a bar to the entertainment of a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution unless (1) there was a complete lack of jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take the action impugned or (2) where the order prejudicial to the writ petitioner has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and could, therefore, be treated as void or nonest. In all other cases, he submitted, Courts should not entertain petitions under Art. 226, or in any event not grant any relief to such petitioners. In all other cases, he submitted, Courts should not entertain petitions under Art. 226, or in any event not grant any relief to such petitioners. In the present case, he urged, the High Court in appeal had expressly dissented from the reasoning of the learned Single Judge as regards the lack of jurisdiction of the Customs Officers to adjudicate regarding the item under which the article imported fell and the duty leviable thereon. Nor was there any complaint in this case that the order had been passed without an opportunity to the importer to be heard, so as to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Solicitor-General questioned the correctness of the reasoning the conduct of the respondent in not moving the Government in revision by taking into account the time that had elapsed between the date of the impugned order and that on which the appeal was heard. The submission was that if this were a proper test, the rule as to it petitioner under Article 226 having to exhaust his remedies before he approached the Court would be practically a dead letter because in most cases by the date the petition comes on for hearing, the time for appealing or for applying in revision to the departmental authorities would have lapsed." Reliance has also been placed in (9) Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1985 SC 1147 . There the Supreme Court held as follows :- "Before we deal with the larger issue, let me put out of the way the contention that found favour with the High Court in rejecting the writ petition. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench recalling the observations of this court in (10) Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery Industries, (1979)4 SCC 22 : AIR 1979 SC 1889 rejected the writ petition observing that the petitioner who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under Art. 226 of the Constitution must have exhausted the normal statutory remedies available to him, we remain unimpressed. Ordinarily it is true that the court has imposed a restraint in its own wisdom on its exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 where the party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective, adequate alternative remedy. Ordinarily it is true that the court has imposed a restraint in its own wisdom on its exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 where the party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective, adequate alternative remedy. More often, it has been expressly stated that the rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than rule of law. At any rate it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. In fact in the very decision relied upon by the High Court in (11) The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 SCR 195 : AIR 1958 SC 86 it is observed that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It should be made specifically clear that where the order complained against is alleged to be illegal or invalid as being contrary to law, a petition at the instance of person adversely affected by it, would lie to the High Court under Art. 226 and such a petition cannot be rejected on the ground that an appeal lies to the higher officer or the State Government. An appeal in all cases cannot be said to provide in all situations an alternative effective remedy keeping aside the nice distinction between jurisdiction and merits. Look at the fact situation in this case. Power was exercised formally by the authority set up under the Rules to grant contract but effectively and for all practical purposes by the Chief Minister of the State. To whom do you appeal in a State administration against the decision of the Chief Minister? The cliche of appeal from Caesar to Caesar's wife can only be bettered by appeal from one's own order to one self. Therefore this is a case in which the High Court was not at all justified in throwing out the petition on the untenable ground that the appellant had an effective alternative remedy. The High Court did not pose to itself the question, who would grant relief when the impugned order is passed at the instance of the Chief Minister of the State. To whom did the High Court want the appeal to be filed over the decision of the Chief Minister? The High Court did not pose to itself the question, who would grant relief when the impugned order is passed at the instance of the Chief Minister of the State. To whom did the High Court want the appeal to be filed over the decision of the Chief Minister? There was no answer and that by itself without anything more would be sufficient to set aside the judgment of the High Court." We are therefore of the view that the learned Judge was not justified in holding that the writ petitioner was liable to be dismissed in limine. 68. There is another aspect of this matter. After the rule was issued by the writ court of the first instance and the matter was heard on merit, the writ application cannot be dismissed solely on the ground that there is an alternative remedy. In our view on the facts of this case even assuming that there is an alternative remedy, It is not efficacious or adequate on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the writ petitioner was dismissed from service just seven days before his retirement which resulted in denial of all retirement benefits. It has severely affected the petitioner who completed more than 27 years of service. The agony of the writ petitioner after retirement without any retirement benefits can be easily appreciated and the appeal would have been taken a longer time and we do not think having regard to the trend of notings in the file and the determination of FCI to shift their responsibility only upon some of the officers might have not brought the desired result. Had an appeal been filed it would have been a mockery of justice. 69. Reliance has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in (12) Hirday Narain v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly reported in AIR 1971 SC 36. A contention was raised before the Supreme Court that the writ petitioner in that case did not move a revision petition against the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 before the Commissioner of Income-tax. Accordingly the writ petitioner was not maintainable. The Supreme Court repelled that contention and observed as follows :- "But Hirday Narain moved a petition in the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court entertained that petition. Accordingly the writ petitioner was not maintainable. The Supreme Court repelled that contention and observed as follows :- "But Hirday Narain moved a petition in the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court entertained that petition. If the High Court had not entertained his petition, Hirday Narain could have moved the Commissioner in revision, because at the date on which the petition was moved the period prescribed by section 32-A of the Act had not expired. We are unable to hold that because a revision application could have been moved for an order correcting the order of the Income-tax Officer under section 35, but was not moved, the High Court would be justified in dismissing as not maintainable petition, which was entertained and was heard on the merits." 70. We are of the view that the writ petition which was entertained and heard on merits cannot be dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioner did not exhaust the alternative remedy. 71. The learned Judge also took into account in dismissing the writ application that although the writ petitioner prayed for issue of writ of mandamus but in fact there had been a violation of Rule 19 of the High Court Rules as the writ petitioner did not demand for justice from the respondents. 72. Reliance has been placed in the case of (13) Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 where the Supreme Court held that the demand and denial of justice to which section 46 requires the matter of substance and not of form. In our opinion there was a substantial demand here and it is clear that there was a denial of justice. 73. We are also of the; view that in this case even assuming formal demand for justice was necessary, that was given. The writ petitioner moved this court on the apprehension that he might be suspended. The writ application was disposed of by directing expeditious disposal of the enquiry proceeding. The contention of the writ petitioner before the Enquiry Authority as well as disciplinary authority was that he was not guilty of charges levelled against him and no proceeding should be taken or continued against him. The writ application was disposed of by directing expeditious disposal of the enquiry proceeding. The contention of the writ petitioner before the Enquiry Authority as well as disciplinary authority was that he was not guilty of charges levelled against him and no proceeding should be taken or continued against him. In substance there had been a demand for justice in this case and there was also a denial as the respondents ultimately passed an order dismissing him just before 7 days of his retirement. In any event on the facts and circumstances of this case demand for justice would have been and idle formality inasmuch as the respondents after passing an order of dismissal certainly would not have been considered it once again and the petitioner would have been advised to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority. In our view this contention raised on behalf of the respondents regarding the formal demand for justice is wholly untenable. 74. It has been contended by Mr. Mitra, learned Counsel for the respondents that there is no perversity in the finding of the Enquiry Officer and the writ Court cannot interfere with such finding of fact, unless there is an error of law in the face of record. 75. In this connection reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in (14) State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Chitra Vekkata Rao reported in AIR 1975 SC 2151 where the Supreme Court, inter alia, held : "In considering whether a public office is guilty of misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court need not be applied. Even if that is not applied by a domestic tribunal in any inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 is not competent to declare the order of authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not a Court of Appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the Delinquent Officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. An error of law which in apparent on the fact of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal." 76. It is, therefore, contended that there is no error in the judgment in appeal. The learned Judge, according to Mr. Mitra, after considering all relevant laws and fact dismissed the writ application. 77. In our view it is not the question of perversity of the finding of the Inquiring Authority but the basic infirmity in the enquiry proceeding itself. The petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry proceeding. The essential requirements of the principles of natural justice have not been complied with in the instant case. The finding of the Inquiring Officer is therefore illegal and void. It is not merely the question as to whether there was any evidence before the Enquiring Authority for its finding. But more fundamental question is whether he complied with the requirements of provisions of the Rules and Principles of natural justice. We have already indicated that in this case principles of natural justice have been grossly violated by the authority. 78. If the finding is arrived at without complying with the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice the finding will be vitiated and consequently the order passed on such finding cannot also be sustained. We have already indicated that in this case principles of natural justice have been grossly violated by the authority. 78. If the finding is arrived at without complying with the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice the finding will be vitiated and consequently the order passed on such finding cannot also be sustained. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider whether the finding was arrived at without any evidence or contrary to evidence on record but since this contention has been raised we shall deal with this contention shortly. 79. A contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant that there was a manifest bias and consequently the petitioner suffers. It cannot be said that this contention is without any substance. The manner in which proceeding conducted and the order passed would show that the Enquiry Officer was not acting independently. He was moving at the instance and dictates of the Disciplinary Authority. We have already referred to the facts appearing from the records and mentioned elsewhere in the judgment. It would be evident that the Disciplinary Authority did not apply its mind and proceeded on the basis of the note prepared by the department. After the report was received from the Enquiry Officer the D.M. (FV) submitted a note on 2ist September, 1984. The said note is as follows :- “Sl. No. 114(Q) P 229/C. The enquiry report against Shri G. Rambin, Joint Manager (A/cs), Zonal Office (East), Calcutta has been received from the Inquiry Officer, Shri A.A. Faridi giving the findings that the charge against him has been proved beyond doubt. The inquiry report placed on the file may kindly be looked into. I have given below the brief details of the case. 2. Shri G. Rambin was charge-sheeted under major penalty proceedings for his misconduct in lacking proper financial planning and control over the matter of distribution of pool fertilizers as a result of which a huge outstanding amounting to Rs. 1.69 crores was remaining unpaid on 31.3.84 for which the Corporation had to file a civil suit ultimately. The precise misconduct on his part are as follows :- a) The instructions contained in the Govt. of India communications in the matter of effecting supplies and recoveries of the cost have been grossly violated. 1.69 crores was remaining unpaid on 31.3.84 for which the Corporation had to file a civil suit ultimately. The precise misconduct on his part are as follows :- a) The instructions contained in the Govt. of India communications in the matter of effecting supplies and recoveries of the cost have been grossly violated. b) In connivance with Shri B.M. Roy, the then AM(A/cs), Shri Rambin did not object to the bills being preferred on the private parties directly instead of preferring them through the Bank as per the instructions. 3. The case has been presented by the Presenting Officer, Shri Mohd. Vikaruddin and Shri Rambin in turn defended his case through his Defence Assistant, Shri Sharma and relied upon a number of defence documents. While the prosecution has presented the case with the supporting material, the defence has only taken a preliminary objection mainly that the charge-sheet was signed by the Joint Manager (Vigilance) instead of the Disciplinary Authority concerned and that the Government of India instructions are not relevant and these instructions ought not to have been mentioned in the imputations for framing the charge-sheet. As regards preferring bills directly to the parties the Defence had argued that these were according to the orders of the Zonal Office (East). Shri Rambin had ultimately concluded his defence stating that he did exercise proper control and check over the progress of the recover and for this purpose he had relied upon a number of Senior Officers as Defence witness. 4. The IO, however, after carefully analyzing the documentary as well as oral evidence from both sides has come to the following clear findings : a) The parties to whom supplies were made repeatedly defaulting in making the payments which resulted in huge accumulation of out standings. b) The FCI had no alternative but to file civil suits on account of the limitation period as the other efforts to realise the dues were not fruitful. c) The LC system envisaged under the scheme was not correctly/properly operated as per standing instructions and that the preferring of bills instead of those Banks was directly resorted to the private parties in contravention of the Government of India FCI instructions. d) The defence documents Ex. c) The LC system envisaged under the scheme was not correctly/properly operated as per standing instructions and that the preferring of bills instead of those Banks was directly resorted to the private parties in contravention of the Government of India FCI instructions. d) The defence documents Ex. D 7(a) to (d) which control registers have been maintained in the most perfunctory manner and as per the testimony of DW-3, the entries in the registers were neither checked nor initialed by any officer and Shri Rambin being a Joint Manager never called for this register to acquaint himself with the progress of the bills and recoveries. This shows rather a detrimental situation against the charged officer that he never maintained any proper check or control. In this context the IO has also made a remark that the Presiding Officer had also proved through the very same register Ex. D 7(c) maintained under the Accounts Branch of which Sri Rambin was Incharge that even the penal interest which is normally to be charged was never realised. This itself is a very serious situation which is to be looked into separately. e) The various prosecution as well as defence witnesses corroborates the fact that the bills were directly preferred to the private parties instead of the Banks which goes against the very basis of the LC system. The IO has pointed out that this fact has been rather proved through the various defence exhibits relied upon by Shri Rambin to disprove his case. f) The connivance of Sri Rambin with his subordinate Officers Shri B.M. Roy has also been clearly established inasmuch as when a proposal was given by Shri B.M. Roy to accommodate the Parties request for extension of the due date of payment, the approval was promptly given by the charged officer (page 15 of the inquiry report). 5. In the end the Inquiry Officer concluded that the charge levelled against Shri Rambin is proved beyond doubt. The IO has also observed that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge through documentary as well as oral evidence. 6. A careful scrutiny of the inquiry report and the connected records disclose no material to disagree with the clear findings of the IO and hence we may agree with the findings. The IO has also observed that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge through documentary as well as oral evidence. 6. A careful scrutiny of the inquiry report and the connected records disclose no material to disagree with the clear findings of the IO and hence we may agree with the findings. Shri Rambin is a direct recruit Joint Manager (A/cs) having initially joined the Corporation in a lower post on deputation and is retiring on 29th instant (30th being a holiday). His case is submitted for orders of the Disciplinary Authority. A list containing major penalty is also placed at flag ‘X’. Sd/- S.T. Srinivasan 21.9.84. DM(LV)-21.9.84." 80. Thereafter the Chief Vigilance Officer made a note and on the basis of the said note Managing Director issued orders for dismissal of the writ petitioner from service. The said notings are as follows : Division-Vigilance File No. Vig. 4(44) F3-Vol. II. Page No. 46. 81. The above note of DM(Legal-Vigilance) giving detailed examination of the case of Shri Rambin JM(A/cs) Zonal Office, Calcutta who has been proceeded against under Major Penalty in which the Inquiry Officer Sri A.A. Faridi. Manager (Inquiry) has found the charges proved beyond doubt, may kindly be perused. I agree with the AM(L-V) that the report of Inquiry Officer may be accepted. 82. It would be seen that as a result of the utter lack of devotion to duty shown by Sri G. Rambin, in his capacity as the head of Finance Division in the office of JM(PO), Calcutta, the financial interest of the Corporation has been seriously jeopardised as the corporation has already incurred Rs. 70,000/- approx as expenditure on litigation without any payment of the out standings in sight. In fact, even, the suit could be filed only on the recommendation of the Vigilance Division almost at the fag end of the Limitation period. Sri G. Rambin, JM, therefore, deserves to be severely punished. Since Sri G. Rambin is a direct recruit and thus ineligible for pension and also retiring within a week from now, another punishment than dismissal will have hardly any punitive effect on him. Submitted for orders please. Sd/- C.V.O. 21.9.84. In view of what is brought out above Sri Rambin may be dismissed from service. Issue orders. M.D. 22.9.84. As per orders on pre-page, a draft penalty order is placed below for approval. 22.9.84. 83. Submitted for orders please. Sd/- C.V.O. 21.9.84. In view of what is brought out above Sri Rambin may be dismissed from service. Issue orders. M.D. 22.9.84. As per orders on pre-page, a draft penalty order is placed below for approval. 22.9.84. 83. It is, therefore, evident that the Disciplinary Authority did not apply its mind at all to the facts of this case. After the enquiry report was submitted, the Deputy Manager (L-V) in putting up the summary of the report to the Chief Vigilance Officer virtually suggested the punishment being inflicted upon the petitioner. It is for the Disciplinary Authority to go through the evidence and the report. It is not for the DM(L-V) to scan the report for the consideration of the Chief Vigilance Officer or the Managing Director the Disciplinary Authority. 84. In another note be said that the IO has observed "prosecution has successfully proved the charge through documentary as well as oral evidence. This conclusion can only be drawn by the Disciplinary Authority after applying his own mind to the facts. The Chief Vigilance Officer recommended which was not within his jurisdiction for severe punishment being imposed upon the petitioner. He has said that any other punishment than dismissal will have hardly any punitive effect on him". The Managing Director on that basis passed an order for dismissal of the petitioner from service. 85. In our view the Disciplinary Authority having not applied his mind to the facts of this case and having imposed the punishment without even going through the evidence of the witnesses should not have directed the imposition of maximum penalty. It may be that second show-cause notice was not necessary, but the Managing Director, being the Disciplinary Authority should have himself considered the pros and cons of the evidence and the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Having not done so, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner cannot be sustained. 86. We shall now consider the charge sheet and the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Having not done so, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner cannot be sustained. 86. We shall now consider the charge sheet and the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Charges framed against the appellant as recorded by the Enquiry Officer are reproduced below: "Shri G. Rambin while functioning as JM(A/cs) in the office of the JM(PO), Calcutta of the Food Corporation of India from 1978 onwards, committed grave misconduct and failed to exercise proper supervision and control in the matter of realisation of the cost of pool fertilizer issued to various Government Agencies, sub-agents, private parties etc. The issue of pool fertilizers to various private parties was regulated in terms of Government of India letter No. 23-7/75-MD dated 14.8.75 and a letter No. 1-5/76-MD dated 20.10.76. Under these instructions various procedures were enumerated for realising the cost, the manner of sending bills etc. Shri Rambin in connivance of Shri B.M. Roy, the then AM(A/cs) of his office did not object to the bills being preferred on the private parties directly instead of preferring them through the Bank as per the instructions. This situation enabled the private parties to take advantage and make default in payment of huge sums to the Corporation. This also in turn enabled the Bankers to dishonour their commitment with regard to the LC operations. As a result of this gross negligence and lack of proper financial planning and control over the matter a huge outstanding amounting to Rs. 1.69 crores was remaining unpaid as on 31.1.84 to be realised from the various private parties. Due to this act of gross negligence and lack of proper financial planning on the part of Shri Rambin, the Corporation had to file a civil suit in the original side of the High Court Judicature at Calcutta incurring huge litigation expenses." 87. The Enquiry Officer after considering the documentary and oral evidence held that the charges levelled against the appellant is proved beyond doubt. 88. The case against the appellant was that he failed to exercise the proper supervision and control in the matter of realisation of the cost of pool fertilizer. He in connivance with Shri B.M. Roy did not object to the bills being preferred on the private parties directly instead of preferring them through bank as per instructions contained in the letter of the Governed dated 14th August, 1975 and 20th October, 1976. He in connivance with Shri B.M. Roy did not object to the bills being preferred on the private parties directly instead of preferring them through bank as per instructions contained in the letter of the Governed dated 14th August, 1975 and 20th October, 1976. This is a case of gross negligence on the part of the Charged Officer and lack of proper financial planning and control resulting in accumulation of outstanding dues and a suit had been instituted incurring huge litigation expenses. 89. The Enquiry Officer inter alia, observed as follows : "Against the sales of pool fertilizer, the parties to whom the suppliers were made were repeatedly defaulting in making the payments to the FCI. As a result of that substantial outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 1.69 crores (approx) were accumulated as on 1.1.1984. 90. The accumulation of above substantial dues was primarily due to two reasons (a) the instrument of the Letter of Credit as envisaged under the scheme was not correctly/ properly operated as per instructions of Government of India/FCI and (b) preferring of bills instead of Bank, was directly resorted to the private parties in contravention of Govt. of India/FCI instructions. "The prosecution has successfully established the charge that the bills were directly preferred to private parties instead of Banks. This has been fully corroborated by various prosecution and defence witnesses in their evidence placed below. The same fact has also been established vide Ex. D-6 and Ex. P-5 while the defence taking shelter under the document marked as Ex. D-6 stated that such orders for preferring bills directly to the parties were issued by the Zonal Office (East) and that was the practice followed by the Charged Officer which was already invogue prior to his joining at Calcutta. Regarding Ex. P-5 the defence has argued that the time extension was allowed by the Charged Officer against the bills preferred directly to the private party was as a special case under the reasons of natural calamity. But both these documentary evidence proves beyond doubt that the bills were preferred directly to the parties, although there was no such provision under the instructions issued by Govt. of India/FCI Headquarters. But both these documentary evidence proves beyond doubt that the bills were preferred directly to the parties, although there was no such provision under the instructions issued by Govt. of India/FCI Headquarters. The C.O.’s contention that the office of JM(PO) Calcutta simply carried out the instructions issued by Zonal Office, Calcutta is not enable Charged Officer being a Senior Grade Officer of the Accounts cadre was required to exercise his own common sence as to whether the orders issued by the Zonal Office Calcutta contravening the orders of FCI. Headquarters/ Govt. of India could be implemented by him without raising this issue and seeking the approval of the competent authority, in such case; at a point of time when he took over the responsibility as Joint Manager (A/cs) in the Office of JM(PO) Calcutta. He did not do so and failed to seek approval/clarification of the competent authority i.e., the FCI Headquarters, New Delhi. Therefore he is liable for the consequence." 91. The connivance of the Charged Officer with his sub-ordinate officer Shri B.M. Roy, the then Assistant Manager (A/cs) of JM(PO) Calcutta has also been fully established by the Presenting Officer. The perusal of Ex. P-5 will reveal that a proposal was put up by Shri B.M. Roy, A.M (A/cs) to accommodate the parties request for extension of due date for payment upto 31.10.78 and upto 17.11.78 for an amount of Rs. 8,90,625.75 and Rs. 8,95,900.00 respectively and the approval was promptly given by the Charged Officer. This involves two issues (a) as to whether the Charged Officer was competent to grant such extension and (b) the recovery of penal interest was overlooked as the Assistant Manager (A/cs) mentioned in Ex P-5 that "in this context it is pertinent to point out that earning of the interest from the parties is not our moto". Without going into these two crucial aspects the Charged Officer gave prompt approval on the file for which he was not competent. This promptness and also the fact that the file was not referred to JM (PO) who, was head of the office, establishes the charge of connivance between the Charged Officer and the Assistant Manager (A/cs). 92. From the various Exhibits and evidence it is also clear that Rs. 50 lakhs were recovered from the committee constituted at the Zonal level. This promptness and also the fact that the file was not referred to JM (PO) who, was head of the office, establishes the charge of connivance between the Charged Officer and the Assistant Manager (A/cs). 92. From the various Exhibits and evidence it is also clear that Rs. 50 lakhs were recovered from the committee constituted at the Zonal level. After further efforts of this committee did not bring desired results, a committee of senior officers was constituted by the Headquarters, to find out ways and means for recovery of substantial outstanding dues. This committee ultimately recommended for filing civil suits against the defaulting parties as the time of limitation period was running out. The civil suits were ultimately filed vide Ex. P-6 according to PW-3 the court fee alone paid in this behalf was to the tune of Rs 30,000/- and according to the testimony of DW-3 the Corporation has already incurred Rs. 70,000/- approximately towards litigation expenditure so far. The testimony of DW-4 cannot be given much credence in such financial matters. Since according to his own statement in the Examination-in-Chief that Zonal Manager in one of meetings with the defaulting parties advised them to furnish Bank guarantee for the balance amount due so that the question of resumption of supply on pre-payment basis may be considered. This was some time in October/November, 1982. But subsequently, the parties failed to furnish the Bank guarantee and there was no purpose to keep reliance on their promises which they had backed out earlier also towards the payment of outstanding dues. Therefore, as the time was running out, the FCI had no alternative but to go in for litigation with the defaulting parties at above exhorbitant cost. This contingency could have been avoided had the Charged Officer carefully, correctly and properly carried out the instructions of Govt. of India/FCI and exercised proper financial check and control over the entire L.C. system, billing system and recovery of dues." The Enquiry Officer, therefore concluded that the charges had been proved. 93. It is surprising that the Enquiry Officer relied on the documents which were listed, but no question were asked on those documents. He has travelled beyond the charge sheet. The Examination-in-Chief of the prosecution witnesses does not disclose any offence allegedly committed by the appellant. 94. Mr. 93. It is surprising that the Enquiry Officer relied on the documents which were listed, but no question were asked on those documents. He has travelled beyond the charge sheet. The Examination-in-Chief of the prosecution witnesses does not disclose any offence allegedly committed by the appellant. 94. Mr. S.K. Ahuja, DM (Imports Accounts), FCI in his deposition said that “sale of fertilizers is strictly governed by the terms and conditions prescribed by the Government of India and there is no provision for sending the bills directly to the purchaser. In case the bills are directly sent to the purchaser, it will be in disregard of the standing instructions. He further stated that he was not aware of any procedure about preferring of bills direct to the party. He stated that about Rs. 1.70 crores were outstanding against three parties and these outstanding were specifically intimated to the Headquarters some limes during 1980-81. A committee of senior officer including Zonal Manager (E) had constituted for amicable settlement of all outstanding dues from the parties concerned. According to him "reasons for accumulation of large outstanding dues as reported by Zonal Manager (E) were due to irregular issue of release orders and also for not pursuing vigorously by JM(PO) Calcutta for realisation of dues". 95. In his cross-examination he said that he has no knowledge whether there is any specific instructions either of Government of India or of FCI that the bills should not be preferred directly to the party. He also did not know who was responsible for issue of release orders for fertilizers. 96. This evidence has not made the appellant liable at all. He only said that if the bills were sent directly to the purchaser, it was in disregard of the standing instruction. It also appears that the huge outstandings were found during the period 1980-81 and it was JM (PO) who was responsible regarding irregular issue of release orders. 97. Mr. T.K. Seth, M (Finance) was examined. In his Examination-in-Chief he stated that be was aware of the fact that of the parties who lifted pool fertilizers from Calcutta defaulted in payment of substantial amount to FCI. In this case the L/Cs were opened in favour of JM(PO) Calcutta and the office of JM (PO) Calcutta was responsible for realisation of payment concerned. In his Examination-in-Chief he stated that be was aware of the fact that of the parties who lifted pool fertilizers from Calcutta defaulted in payment of substantial amount to FCI. In this case the L/Cs were opened in favour of JM(PO) Calcutta and the office of JM (PO) Calcutta was responsible for realisation of payment concerned. The responsibility for realisation of payments and keeping watch over the operation of L/Cs rests with both the section the, operational section and the Finance/Account section of the JM (PO) Office. The head of Finance and Accounts section of JM (PO) Calcutta is JM(F&A). A committee was constituted by Head Office with the senior officers of both Zonal Office (E) and Head Office for negotiation with the defaulting parties and finding out ways and means for quick realisation of FCI dues. He was one of the members of that Committee. As far as he recalls some small amount was paid by the parties as a result of negotiation but they declined to furnish the bank guarantee as co-lateral security ensuring payment of FCI dues. As a result the committee recommended to file suit against the parties. Not as a member but otherwise Shri Rambin the then JM (F & A) of JM (PO) Calcutta was also associated. Around, Rs. 1.7 crores were the outstanding dues of the FCI during January, 1984. As far as he recollected the reasons for the accumulation of the substantial outstanding were broadly (a) the delay in furnishing of executed ROs by Operational Div. which consequently delayed the preferment of the bills (b) issue of ROs in excess of the financial arrangements made by the party through L/C. The accumulation was not a direct consequence of sending the bills directly to the parties but due to non-observance of the instructions for submitting such bills within a stipulated period to the bank. In an ideal condition if all the parties involved in the transaction wants to abid by the agreed terms and conditions it is possible to avoid litigation. 98. In his cross-examination he admitted that sometime during September, 1978 there was unprecedented foods/rains and due to that reason JM (PO) Officer allowed extension of time for payment of fertilizer's cost as the party could not lay their hands/trace the relevant documents. 98. In his cross-examination he admitted that sometime during September, 1978 there was unprecedented foods/rains and due to that reason JM (PO) Officer allowed extension of time for payment of fertilizer's cost as the party could not lay their hands/trace the relevant documents. According to him since the payment is to be received from the banks against the L/C, extension of time should not normally arise. "Q. In this case the bills with supporting papers were in the custody of the party who wanted extension of time for payment. As a very special step JM (A/cs) of JM (PO) Office Calcutta allowed the extension of time and the money was ultimately realised. In your opinion was this step in the financial interest of the Corporation ?" "Ans. I have gone through the relevant note (Exhibit P-5) and the connected PUO. In my opinion the AM concerned should have brought this fact to the notice of higher authorities well in advance and taken initiative to collect the documents from the party. However, the circumstances of the case as revealed in the note is making me to believe extension of time in these two cases had to be given. Moreover, as has been mentioned the money has been fully realised which goes to prove that under the then circumstance the extension was given as a special case keeping in view of the financial interest of the Corporation. It is not clear either from the note or from the question whether penal rate of interest was also collected for the payment which was received beyond sixty days." 99. Further he stated that he was not aware of any instruction that only JM (A/C) has to sign all the bills and relevant documents to be preferred to the bank or to private parties against supply of fertilizers? 100. He was also re-examined by the Presenting Officer and in his re-examination he stated as follows :_ "As I have already mentioned the earlier occasion that in normal course payment is to be collected from the LIC but the circumstances of the case as it is seen from Exhibit P-5 and explained to me I had already observed that probably in the circumstances of the case the decision for extension of time was not entirely against the financial interest of the Corporation as it was also stated that the entire amount has been collected. Coming to the question whether this type of action is covered by any instruction of GOI and FCI it is stilted that I am not aware about any such instruction has been issued either by GOI or by the FCI-HO." 101. This evidence also does not bring out any case against the petitioner. He did not say what the Enquiry Officer concluded. The conclusion or finding of Enquiry Officer would show that the entire department defended on the working of the petitioner and no other officer was responsible for anything done. 102. The third and last witnesses who was examined on behalf of the prosecution is Shri K. Ramchandran, Manager (F & A), FCI-ZO (East), Calcutta. He stated in his examination in chief as follows : “After taking over as principals w.e.f, 1.3.76 FCI will issue a release order against L/C opened by parties for purchase of fertilizers. The bills shall be raised against the banks and the parties are given 60 days credit facilities but the cheques will have to be issued by the paying bankers on or before 55th day leaving a margin of 5 days for realisation. Subsequently cash rebate was allowed if pre-payment was made by the parties. The Regional Offices and the JM (PO) Office as the case may be shall issue release orders and realise the payments. In JM (PO) Office Calcutta the Head of the Finance and Account was the JM in Manager (Accounts). He is subordinate to JM(PO). The normal procedure is that the officers who prefers bill have to maintain a bill register and submit the bills in time and watch the recovery. Some of the parties have defaulted and more than Rs. 1.69 crores is outstanding and this amount may also increase on account of claim of interest and this is subject to adjustment of any transport charges claims to be admitted. The knowledge of outstanding came to the Zonal Office at the time of review of audited accounts of notice of JM (PO) Region from the year 1978-79 and 1979-80. Zonal Office level when the outstanding came to notice the JM (PO) and his officers were advised to realise the money by contacting the banks and also by persuading the parties to make the payment due and streamline the procedures. Zonal Office level when the outstanding came to notice the JM (PO) and his officers were advised to realise the money by contacting the banks and also by persuading the parties to make the payment due and streamline the procedures. Apart from this a Committee comprising of Officers of Zonal Office and JM(PO) Office met and discussed with the parties under chairmanship of ZM (East) and realised about Rs. 50 lakhs. Subsequently a Committee was also formed by the HO which also held discussions with the parties for settlement of outstanding dues. The instructions of GOI and FCI that the bills are to be sent to the bank if it is against L/C system unless pre-payment is made. I have been shown Exhibit B-5 which indicates that grant of extension of time for payment of FCI bills was allowed by JM(PO) Office which is not in order. It would appear from Exhibit P-5 and PUC referred to therein the bills have been directly preferred to the parties. Reasons for such huge accumulation are on account of delay in preferring the bills and watching the recoveries” "The Committee of the senior officers constituted by the Headquarters of which I was also a member, Shri Rambin, JM (A/cs) was associated with this Committee. Though the party was given assurance from time to time to make payment to the committee constituted by HO to file the money suit. The suits have been filed by JM(PO) Calcutta. It should be about Rs. 30,000/- towards court fee and the amount payable to lawyers as per provision of the Calcutta High Court." 103. Then in his cross-examination, he admitted that revolving L/Cs are also to be accepted in view of the facts that the L/C can be opened for a reasonable specific amount to cover the total cost of fertilizer for which supplies are required by the parties during one month and would be replenished after weekly reviews. The L/C will remain inforce for a period of six months. He said : “Q. 7. You have seen Exhibit D-3 which is a DO letter dated April 16, 1977 from Director (F & A) of the Deptt. of Agriculture addressed to Deputy Financial Adviser, FCI-HD, New Delhi. You have also seen Exhibit P-2 which is a circular from the Ministry of Agriculture dated 20.10.1976 addressed to all State Govts., FCI Officers etc. You have seen Exhibit D-3 which is a DO letter dated April 16, 1977 from Director (F & A) of the Deptt. of Agriculture addressed to Deputy Financial Adviser, FCI-HD, New Delhi. You have also seen Exhibit P-2 which is a circular from the Ministry of Agriculture dated 20.10.1976 addressed to all State Govts., FCI Officers etc. Does it mean or will it be correct if I say that the aforesaid DO letter was in supper-session of the above mentioned circular though it has not been mentioned so in the DO Letter ?" "Ans. The Exhibit P-2 does not specify the terms and conditions of the L/C. Whereas it would appear from Exhibit D-3 that the terms of L/Cs were finalised by the Ministry for purchase of pool fertilizers which gives the provision for acceptance of such revolving L/Cs." "Q. 8. Do you agree that the subsequent orders of the GOI for acceptance of revolving L/Cs created lot of confusion and became one of the major cause for accumulation of outstanding dues ?" "Ans. Opening of revolving L/Cs by themselves would not cause any confusion provided the individual monetary limits and the time span of the L/C has been taken into account." 104. Further he admitted that theoretically monitoring and control over irrevocable L/Cs as envisaged in Exhibit P-2 was easier and safer for realisation of cost of fertilizers than the revolving L/Cs which were allowed by the GOI in terms of instructions contained in Exhibit D-3. "Q. 10. Please see Exhibit D-4 which is ad instruction from Accounts Branch of JM(PO) Office addressed to DM (Movement) of the same office regarding issue of RO to the purchaser after realisation of cost of first release order and in case of L/C system the second RO will only be issued on receipt of complete sales documents of first RO. Do you agree that these instruction were correctly issued by the Accounts Branch to the Operating Branch of JM(PO) Office?" "Ans. Yes and as far as I remember these instructions have been reiterated again during 1984 by HO" "Q. 11. Despite these instructions, do you agree that the R Os were issued in hapazard manner without ensuring the realisation of payment against the R Os issued earlier? And similarly in the case of L/C system without receiving the complete sale documents of earlier R Os ?" "Ans. Despite these instructions, do you agree that the R Os were issued in hapazard manner without ensuring the realisation of payment against the R Os issued earlier? And similarly in the case of L/C system without receiving the complete sale documents of earlier R Os ?" "Ans. It is difficult to answer this question without verification of records. However, it may be stated that internal audit which conducted special audit as the instrance of Zonal Finance had brought out cases of delay of submission of sale documents." "Q. 12. Please see Exhibit D-5 which is an order issued by Zonal Manager authorising Shri S.C. Bhattacharjee, AFA, Shri N. Majumdar, SAM(A/cs) and Shri B.M. Roy, AM(A/cs) to sign all bills and other related documents for presentation to the bank for realisation of the value for supplies of fertilizers made to the allottees/re-allottees of the State Govt. including private parties. Is it correct that there was no further authorisation in the name of G. Rambin, JM(A/cs) of JM (PO) Office ?" "Ans. I am not aware whether any such authorisation was issued or not, as Shri G. Rambin had assumed charge as JM(A/cs) prior to my tenure M (F & A) at Calcutta." "Q. 16. You have been shown Exhibit P-5 about which you have observed that the time extension allowed for payment was not in order. What there any audit objection also in this regard ?" "Ans. None to my knowledge." "Q. 18. You have stated the money suits have been filed in the Court. Have you seen the details of outstanding recoveries for which the suits have been filed ? You may kindly see Exbibit-6 also in this regard." "Ans. As would be seen from Exhibit P-6 the claims relate to the year 1981 it may however, be stated that the management has asked for special audit of the claims." 105. The analysis of the evidence would go to show that the prosecution failed to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant. The evidence of the officers did not directly or otherwise Indicated that the appellant was negligent in discharging his duties. On the contrary it reflects the manner in which the superior officers performed their duties. The allegation of connivance was not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of the officers did not directly or otherwise Indicated that the appellant was negligent in discharging his duties. On the contrary it reflects the manner in which the superior officers performed their duties. The allegation of connivance was not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses. It is unfortunate that the appellant was sought to be held guilty on the basis of the evidence of the officers who themselves wanted a settlement with the parties which we have already referred to. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that there was no evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer failed to point out how the evidence of the prosecution unmistakably pointed out the guilt of the appellant. 106 In our view, the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be sustained for more than one reason. Firstly such finding has been arrived at without following the principles of natural justice and secondly such finding has been arrived at without considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and ignoring the relevant materials on record. There is no evidence to justify the finding and conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. 107. Last but not least, there is another aspect of the matter. The order was made against appellant just 7 days before his retirement which resulted in deprivation of all his service benefits of 27 years. The Vigilance Officer recommended that punishment short of dismissal from service would not be adequate. Although he had no jurisdiction to recommend order of dismissal from service but the Managing Director i.e., the Disciplinary Authority only dittoed the same. Firstly, the Disciplinary Authority did not apply his mind to the quantum of punishment to be inflicted on an officer who served the department without there being any adverse remark against him for the last 27 years. He failed to take into account that by dismissing him from service he was denying him bare minimum livelihood in the form of pensionary benefit after 27 years service. Secondly, the punishment inflicted was disproportionate to the charges levelled against the appellant. He failed to take into account that by dismissing him from service he was denying him bare minimum livelihood in the form of pensionary benefit after 27 years service. Secondly, the punishment inflicted was disproportionate to the charges levelled against the appellant. Even assuming that he was negligent in his duties, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have taken a reasonable and pragmatic view of the matter because the petitioner, assuming he was to some extent responsible for delay in realising the dues could only be one or the links in the chain. The respondent did not proceed against any of the superior officers who cannot shirk off their responsibility if the appellant is held to be guilty of the offences charged against him. In our view, the punishment inflicted is shockingly disproportionate having regard to the offence charged and allegedly proved. 108. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. The order of dismissal dated 22nd September, 1984 is set aside and quashed. The petitioner shall be treated as on duty for the entire period from the date of his dismissal till his retirement on 30th September, 1984. The petitioner shall be entitled to salary from the date of his dismissal till the date of his retirement. He shall be paid all his retirement benefit and arrear salary within two weeks from the date of communication of this operative part of the judgment and order. The appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of retirement benefits that will be paid to him from the date of his retirement till the date of payment. The petitioner will be entitled to costs of this writ application and appeal assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. Such cost shall be paid within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order. All parties shall act on the signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this judgment and order. Yusuf. J. : I agree.