Order: This writ petition was moved on behalf of Sri Wangyel Zimba, a member of the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) challenging, inter alia, the initiation of proceeding pursuant to the issuance of charge-sheet dated March 29, 1988 together with the statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the charge and the enquiry proceedings together with the order of suspension issued along with the second show cause notice dated october 24, 1989, being Annexure 'H' and 'I' respectively to the writ petition. 2. This writ petition was moved before Monoranjan Mallick, J. on November 10, 1989 when His Lordship passed directions for affidavit in presence of the learned Advocate for the respondents and passed no other order. 3. As this matter is coming under category of non expedited matter, it was thereafter mentioned before me on February 21, 1990 and March 1, 1990 and this Court fixed final hearing and extended time to file affidavit in opposition in presence of the learned Advocates for the respondents. On March 30, 1990 the time to file affidavit in opposition was further extended by this Court on the prayer of the learned Advocate for the respondents and it was heard on April 23, May 3, May 11 and on May 15, 1990 and hearing was concluded and judgment was reserved. The facts in short are stated hereunder. 4. The petitioner was appointed a member of the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) in the junior scale on probation by the Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Home (PAR) Department and joined service on May 5, 1978. The conditions of appointment were, inter alia, that the petitioner would be on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date of joining the service during which time the petitioner would be required to undergo training and to pass the departmental examinations and that his confirmation would depend on passing the departmental examinations. 5. As the petitioner completed all the formalities and became successful in all the parts, his services were accordingly confirmed after the expiry of two years from the date of joining with effect from May 5, 1978. 6. 5. As the petitioner completed all the formalities and became successful in all the parts, his services were accordingly confirmed after the expiry of two years from the date of joining with effect from May 5, 1978. 6. It is alleged that the petitioner, who does not belong to the "YOLME" (Scheduled Tribe) community, appeared in the W. B. C. S. (Executive) Examination in the year 1977 by falsely declaring that he belonged to the "YOLME" community in support whereof he produced a Tribal Certificate which he falsely obtained in 1971 and passed the examination as Scheduled Tribe candidate. It is further alleged that the petitioner on the basis of such false declaration is still continuing in Government service and at present holding the post of Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector of Darjeeling. 7. A charge-sheet was issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary. Government of West Bengal, Home Department, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Branch, Writers Buildings, respondent no 2 herein, dated March 29, 1988 containing the charges being Annexures I, II, III and IV under Annexure 'B' to the instant petition. 8. It appears from the said charge-sheet that the petitioner, who does not belong to the 'Yolme' community appeared in the W.B.C.S. Executive) Examination in the year 1977 by falsely declaring himself that he belongs to the 'Yolme' community and in support of his claim produced a Tribal certificate which he falsely obtained in 1971 and passed the examination as an S. T candidate. It further appears that because of such false declaration the petitioner was allotted to Home (P. & A. R.) Department by the Public Service Commission (West Bengal) for appointment against a permanent vacancy in the S. T. quota W. B. C. S. (Executive) rank on the results of the said examination in 1977. It also appears that the petitioner on the basis of such false declarations is still continuing in Government service and at present holding the post of Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector of Darjeeling. Such conduct of the petitioner prima facie shows lack of integrity and is improper and in becoming of a public servant and as such violative of Rules 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 read with Rule 8(2) of the West Bengal Service (Duties, Rights and Obligations of the Government Employees) Rules, 1980. 9. Such conduct of the petitioner prima facie shows lack of integrity and is improper and in becoming of a public servant and as such violative of Rules 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 read with Rule 8(2) of the West Bengal Service (Duties, Rights and Obligations of the Government Employees) Rules, 1980. 9. Along with the above charges, it is the further allegation that the petitioner by religion Buddhist, son of Lal Bahadur Zimba of Nagri Farm Tea Estate, P. S. Sukhia Pakhri, Post Officer Narish Spur, District Darjeeling passed the Higher Secondary Examination in March 1969 in which he did not describe his community as 'Yolme' and also did not mention that he belonged to the S. T. community. His fathers name was also recorded as Lal Bahadur Zimba without any alias. While he was studying B.A. at St. Joseph College, Darjeeling, he applied to the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes, Department, Darjeeling for an S. T. Certificate falsely declaring himself in the application form that he belonged to the 'Yolme' community meaning that he belonged to the S. T. Community. In the said application he also changed his father's name by falsely furnishing as Doma Dorji Zimba without giving any alias but he did not use the said certificate during his study in the college for S. T. Stipend and other facilities given to such community. 10. It appears that in the year 1977 he appeared at the W.B.C.S. (Executive) Examination as an S. T. candidate by falsely declaring that he belonged to the "Yolme" (S. T.) community and passed the said, examination. It further appears that he being second in the list of qualified S. T. candidates was allotted to Home (P. & A.R.) Department for appointment against a permanent vacancy in the S. T. quota in the W. B. C. S. (Executive) on the results of the said examination. It appears that he is continuing in the Government service as S. T. candidate and at present holding the post of Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector at Darjeeling Collectorate. It transpires that his father Sri Lal Bahadur Zimba got employment in the Tea Garden in the said name which was permanently recorded in the Register of his employer. 11. It appears that he is continuing in the Government service as S. T. candidate and at present holding the post of Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector at Darjeeling Collectorate. It transpires that his father Sri Lal Bahadur Zimba got employment in the Tea Garden in the said name which was permanently recorded in the Register of his employer. 11. It also appears from the enquiry report of Superintendent of Police, D. I. B. Darjeeling dated December 5, 1981 that 'Zimba' is a sub caste of "Tamang" (a caste to Nepali community) and does not belong to any tribal community or Tibetan community. 12. It further appears from the enquiry report dated June 30, 1087 of the Special Officer Scheduled Caste and Tribe Welfare. Darjeeling that the father of the petitioner is Lal Bahadur Zimba without alias and it appears from the report of the President, Yolme Buddhist Association that the surname/title "Zimba" does not come within Yolme community. The Joint Secretary Yolme Buddhist Association, Darjeeling by his letter dated April 16, 1080 stated, inter alia, as follows:- ''Title Zimba" does not come under the Yolme community but is one of the sub-caste title amongst the Nepali Tamang Buddhist. As Tamang Buddhists are not recognised by the Govt. of India under the Scheduled Tribes and Castes community, hence the title 'Zimba' does not come under tribal community." 13. Thus it appears that although Sri Zimba does not belong to the S.T. Community, he produced the certificate by falsely declaring himself as a member of the said community.' The explanation of Sri Zimba does not seem to be convincing. Hence the charge. Annexure-III contains the list of documents by which the articles of charge framed against the petitioner are proposed to be sustained. Annexure-IV contains the list of witnesses by whom the article of charge framed against the petitioner is proposed to be sustained. 14. Sri N. N. Bhattacharjee, the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, Government of West Bengal was appointed the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence that the articles of charges levelled against him were false. The petitioner did not plead guilty and wanted to be heard in person. 14. Sri N. N. Bhattacharjee, the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, Government of West Bengal was appointed the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence that the articles of charges levelled against him were false. The petitioner did not plead guilty and wanted to be heard in person. The petitioner in his statement of defence against the imputation of misconduct under the charges framed in the Annexures I, II and III categorically made his submissions stating that the said charges were false and baseless. The petitioner by his letter dated May 13, 1988 addressed to Deputy Secretary, Home (P. & A.R.) Department, Government of West Bengal prayed for permission for engaging a lawyer to defend his case. 15. During the enquiry, P.W. 2 Sri Dewa Dhondup has stated, inter alia, as follows:- "I was the General Secretary of Yolmo Buddhist Association Darjeeling from 1976 to 1981. Yolmo is a community of Buddhist and I was elected by votes of our members. The title Zimba does not come under Yolmona Community. It is one of the sub caste title amongst the Nepali Tamang Buddhists and Nepali Tamang Buddhists are not recognised by the Government of India as belonging to Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste Community, Zimba title holders are not scheduled tribe. I intimated A.C.I, Darjeeling the aforesaid fact in my letter (Ext 2).". 16. P. W. 3 Sri N. Wangdi has deposed, inter alia, as follows:- "I am the Special Officer, S. C. & T. W. Darjeeling since March 1985. In this letter I intimated about the family particulars and community back ground of Sri Wangyl Zimba after making enquiries. This memo contains the results of my enquiry which I intimated. The enquiries were made at Pokhriabong, Secretary, Tribal Association, Pokhriabong, Nagri Farm Tea Estate where the father of Sri Wangyl Zimba namely Sri Lal Bahadur Zimba was an employee and also with the President Yolmo Buddhist Association. The results of my enquiries reveal that Mr. Wangyl Zimba who is present here does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe Community. This is the application in prescribed form submitted by Wangyl Zimba for grant of a certificate that he was belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Community (marked Ext 4). This is the prescribed scheduled tribe certificate granted to Sri Wangyl Zimba by the Special Officer S. C. & S. T. Darjeeling dated 25-2-1971 (marked Ext. 5). This is the application in prescribed form submitted by Wangyl Zimba for grant of a certificate that he was belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Community (marked Ext 4). This is the prescribed scheduled tribe certificate granted to Sri Wangyl Zimba by the Special Officer S. C. & S. T. Darjeeling dated 25-2-1971 (marked Ext. 5). In his application for grant of the certificate Sri Zimba mentioned his fathers name as Doma Dorji Zimba. The word Doma stands for female deity. In his application there was no mention of any alias to his fathers name. Doma is applicable to female Buddhist only. Doma is a female deity in Mahajana Buddhism. I did not go through the records of Nagri Farm Tea Estate myself. I sent my Inspector of the said Tea Estate. He contacted the Tea Head Clerk of the Tea Estate to ascertain from the service book of father of Wangeyl Zimba named Lal Bahadur Zimba. My Inspector submitted a report to me stating that there was no system of maintaining service book and so he could not go through the service of Lal Bahadur Zimba. However, the Inspector submitted a report to me giving the particulars of his father and his brothers. His brothers names are Nima Wangeyl Zimba, Ashok Zimba and Lalit Zimba, all sons of Lal Bahadur Zimba. The date of the application of Sri Wangyl Zimba for the Scheduled Tribe Certificate is November, 1970, the date has been penned through Applicant was a 2nd year B.A. student or St. Joseph College, North Point Darjeeling, as disclosed by him the application. The purpose was to obtain the certificate for service. The certificate of being a member of Scheduled Tribe was granted under signature of Sri C. T. Bhutia, the then S.O., S.C. & T.W. Darjeeling." 17. In cross examination the said officer Sri N. Wangdi deposed the following facts:- S.T. Certificates are issued by the Special Officer, S.C. & T.W. after making proper enquiry and also after being satisfied about the genuin-enesses of the claim being identified by M.L.A., M.P. Gazetted Officer, President or the Secretary of the particular community to which one .claims to be belonging. In the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 there was no system of making local enquiry before granting the certificates." 18. In the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 there was no system of making local enquiry before granting the certificates." 18. Regarding the grant of certificate to the brother of the petitioner Lakpa Yolmo, he deposed as follows:- "When I granted the certificate to Lakpa I tried to find out the truth from my questioning. Subsequently, C. T. Bhutia came once again as S.O., S.C & T.W. Darjeeling and submitted a report dated 15th April, 1980 under Memo No. 851-T.W. stating that Lakpa was not a member of S.T. He said 'It appears that he changed his real name to obtain the certificate. "This is the said Memo of C.T. Bhutia containing his initial on this office copy (marked Ext 6). I have heard that certificate of S.T. given to Lakpa, younger brother of Wangyl Zimba was subsequently cancelled. But I have no personal knowledge. In this connection, I would like to point out the report of my Inspectress Evelyn Rana (Lapcha) dated 29-8-80 submitted to A.C.I. stating that the bottom portion of the application form filed by Sri Lakpa Yolmo and on which portion the then Treasure Officer, Sri C.T. Bhutia gave the identification certificate was missing and that was probably due to the fact that the said portion had been torn out." 19. On behalf of the petitioner, one D.T. Tagang a Teacher was examined as follows:- "I know Sri Wangeyl Zimba and his family. Wangeyl's fathers name is Doma Dorji. His name as is current in the village is L. B. Zimba. L. B. Zimba means Lal Bahadur Zimba." 20. On May 11, 1988 the petitioner prayed before Sri N. N. Bhattacharjee, Inquiring Authority (when the enquiring officer was holding the enquiry at Calcutta) that he would like to submit the list of Defence Witnesses and the additional document for his consideration and accordingly prayed for six months time and that the venue for next hearing might be fixed at Darjeeling as two of his witnesses were unable to take long journey to Calcutta due to old age which, however, the Enquiry Officer did not allow and the enquiry was concluded at Calcutta. The Enquiry Officer refused to grant time to the petitioner. 21. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated June 19, 1989. 22. The Enquiry Officer refused to grant time to the petitioner. 21. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated June 19, 1989. 22. Arriving at the relevant conclusion, the Enquiry Officer submitted that he had no hesitation to hold that the petitioner was not a member of the Yolmo Community but falsely declaring himself to be belonging to the same he obtained a false certificate and with the help of the same eventually obtained an appointment in his favour in the reserved quota of the W.B.C.S. (Ex) cadre on the basis of the results of the said examination. 23. On receiving the above enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, being the Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, by an order dated October 24, 1989 passed the order of suspension along with the second show cause notice which was impugned in the instant petition. 24. It is curious to note that although the impugned order of suspension dated October 24, 1989 has been passed but the same has not been acted upon and the petitioner was allowed to work and attend office till March 19, 1990 by putting his signatures on the relevant files. 25. Mr. L. C. Bihani, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that no charge can be framed against the petitioner inasmuch as the respondents including the Special Officer after making due enquiry issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner as far back as 1970. 26. According to Mr. Bihani, it cannot be suggested by any stretch of imagination that for the purpose of appearing at the W.B.C.S. (Ex) Examination the petitioner with the definite intention made an application for issuance of such certificate about 7 years back, ie., in 1970 as the Scheduled Tribe certificate was granted by the officer after holding due enquiry. 27. Secondly, Mr. Bihani submits that there was no material before the respondents and each one of them to issue formal charge-sheet against the petitioner that the petitioner obtained a certificate by false representation as had been done in the present case. 28. 27. Secondly, Mr. Bihani submits that there was no material before the respondents and each one of them to issue formal charge-sheet against the petitioner that the petitioner obtained a certificate by false representation as had been done in the present case. 28. Thirdly, he submits that the Enquiry Officer being the Commissioner of Enquiry, Vigilance Commission and a member of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service conducted and completed the proceedings in clear violation of the principles of natural justice as the same would be evident from the fact that the prayer of the petitioner to adjourn the hearing for six months for producing further defence witnesses and other documents was not accepted. He added that in the facts and circumstances of the present case no charge could be sustained as there was no specific proof in the possession of the respondents to arrive at the conclusion about the petitioner's guilt of false representation for getting the necessary S.T. Certificate. from the Competent Authority as far back as 1970. 29. Lastly, he submits that it will be evident from the enquiry report at page 58 of the writ petition that the Enquiry Officer has shifted the onus of proving or disproving the charges in the following manner:- "In his written statement of defence dt. nil submitted on 16.5.88, Sri Wangeyl Zimba simply denied the charge without trying to make out any case of his own." 30. At the final hearing of the writ petition, Mr. Bihani has also referred to the certificate issued by Sri N. Wangdi in respect of Lakpa Wangyal, younger brother of the petitioner who has been granted an S.T. Certificate after making due enquiry which has been disclosed in the supplementary affidavit affirmed on April 30, 1990 and also an extract from Dr. Kumar Pradhan's The Gorkha Conquests: The Process and Consequence of the Unification of Nepal Ch 3: Eastern Nepal Tribes and Traditions to be published by Oxford University Press soon which was also included in the said Supplementary Affidavit. 31. According to Mr. Bihani, has the Enquiry Officer granted opportunity to the petitioner to produce the aforesaid documents from the extract of Dr. 31. According to Mr. Bihani, has the Enquiry Officer granted opportunity to the petitioner to produce the aforesaid documents from the extract of Dr. Kumar Pradhan Gorkha Conquests referred to hereinabove, it would have been proved that the impugned charge-sheet could not be sustained against the petitioner as the respondents were in doubt in issuing the charges and could not prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. 32. On the basis of the research work of Dr. Pradhan as aforesaid, it has been observed, inter alia, as follows:- "The Yolmos are very much akin to the Tamangs and the Sherpas, and the three of them probably originated from the same stock. As a matter of fact, many people in Helembu regard themselves as Sherpas, and some deny the very existence of Yolmo as a separate tribe,. However, the Yolmo dialect, Yolmali, is considered to be quite distinct from the Solo Khumbu Sherpa Speech. Tamang, Yolmali and Sherpas dialects are but variations of the Tibetan language. All of them follow Tibetan Buddhism and use Tibetan scriptures. Some of Yolmo clan names like Dongba, Syangba, Zangba, Zingha, Zimba are very similar to the Tamang clan names like Dong; with the suffix be dropped, Syangbo, Zimba and so on." 33. Mr. Bihani refers from Scheduled Tribes Brochure from page 33 of the Brochure containing the provisions of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act 1976 and the Rules framed thereunder and subsequent amendments thereof published by the Scheduled Castes & Tribes Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal. In item No. 5 of the Scheduled Tribes Bhutia, Sherpa, Toto, Dukpa, Kagatay, Tibetan, Yolmo have been included. 34. So, according to Mr. Bihani, there was ample evidence before the Enquiry Officer to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner belonged to the S.T. Community. 35. Mr. Bihani further submits that this Court should set aside the Enquiry report, the order of suspension and the second show cause notice dated October 24, 1984 for not affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to place all the relevant documents before the Enquiry Officer referred to hereinabove. 36. On the point of violation of the principles of natural justice, Mr. Bihani has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surath Chandra Chakraborty vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 36. On the point of violation of the principles of natural justice, Mr. Bihani has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surath Chandra Chakraborty vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 752. Wherein it has been held, inter alia, as follows:- "Rule 55 embodies a principle which is one of the basis contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by protecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him. The whole object of furnishing the statement of allegations is to give all the necessary particulars and details which would satisfy the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity to put up defence. So, in spite of the Government servant repeatedly objecting to the vagueness of the charges and non furnishing of statements of allegations, the failure to supply him the facts, circumstances and particulars relevant to the charges even at the stage of second show cause notice would amount to denial of proper and reasonable opportunity of defending himself in complete disregard to Rule 55." 37. On this point, he has also referred to another decision of Mahitosh Majumdar, J. of this Court in the case of Santi Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1980 (II) C.H.N. 221 wherein it was, inter alia, held as follows:- "The enquiry proceeding was held perfunctorily. The petitioner was fastened with the charge not charged with. The report is founded upon conjectures and surmises and hypothesis. Hypothetical tests cannot take the place of proof." 38. On the point of applicability of the rules of natural justice, Mr. Bihani has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597. Hypothetical tests cannot take the place of proof." 38. On the point of applicability of the rules of natural justice, Mr. Bihani has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597. In paragraph 33 at page 612 of the Report, it has been held as follows:- "In England, the rule was thus expressed by Byles J in Cooper vs. Wands worth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB (NS) 180: "The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence, if he has any I remember to have heard it by a very learned man, upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. "Adam (says God)" where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat, And the same question was put to Eve also." 39. Mr. Arun Kumar Motilal, learned Advocate for the respondents, has however referred to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the affidavit in opposition wherein Sri Prafulla Kumar Dasgupta respondent no 5, has deposed, inter alia as follows:- "I state that Sri Tarapada Mukherjee, Sri Dawa Dhondop, Sri N. Wangdi were respectively examined and cross examined on 26th April; 1989 and Sri Ram Kumar Sharma was examined and cross examined on 27th April, 1989. The witness D.T. Tamang on behalf of the writ petitioner was examined and cross examined in May 1989. The records reveral that on assessment of evidence the enquiring authority came to a reasoned decision in the matter." 40. Mr. Motilal further submits that the proceedings commenced on April 13, 1988 and there was a further sitting of the enquiry at Calcutta on May 11, 1989 when the petitioner filed an application for adjournment for six months which was not allowed by the Enquiry Officer. 41. According to Mr. Motilal, this Court has to decide whether by denying further opportunity to the petitioner to produce further evidence and documents there has been any violation on the part of the Enquiring Authority. 42. 41. According to Mr. Motilal, this Court has to decide whether by denying further opportunity to the petitioner to produce further evidence and documents there has been any violation on the part of the Enquiring Authority. 42. According to him, this Court is entitled to interfere with the findings of the proceeding but if there are some materials before the Enquiring Officer he was entitled to arrive at the necessary conclusion as in the instant case it will not be proper for this Court to interfere with such findings challenging the impugned second show cause notice and the order of suspension. 43. On being pointed out by this Court, Mr. Motilal of course could not satisfy this Court as to the authenticity of the certificate granted by the Tribal officer dated December 18, 1972 in favour of the petitioner which had been issued only after proper enquiry by the said authority. 44. Therefore, it is necessary for this Court to arrive at the requisite opinion as to whether the respondents had any material to frame a charge against the petitioner that the petitioner did not belong to YOLMO Community (Scheduled Tribe) as it was done in the present case. 45. Secondly, whether the principles of natural justice have been denied by not affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents and witnesses and also by not granting adjournment as prayed for the said purpose. 46. Regarding point no 1, in my view, the Tribal Officer having issued a certificate after making necessary enquiries as far back as in 1970 and coming to the conclusion that the petitioner belonged to the Yolmo community (Scheduled Tribe) the Disciplinary Authority should not have issued the charge-sheet dated March 29, 1988 after 10 years since the petitioner joined service in 1978. 47. But, at this stage, it will not be fit and proper for this Court to arrive at the necessary conclusion as there is no final punishment imposed in respect of the petitioner as yet by passing the order of removal from service but the authorities have issued the second show cause notice with the proposal for punishment and the order of suspension which has been impugned in the writ petition. 48. 48. Regarding the second point, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, as discussed hereinabove this Court is of the view that by not granting adjournment for six months to allow the petitioner to produce the relevant documents and witnesses on May 11, 1989, there was denial of natural justice and accordingly no punishment could be imposed on the basis of the enquiry report dated June 19, 1988 as submitted by the Enquiring Officer. 49. In my view, by not granting adjournment on the basis of the prayer made by the petitioner to produce further evidence and documents on May 11, 1989 the Enquiring Officer had really shut out the material evidences on behalf of the defence and denied the writ petitioner the reasonable opportunity to defend his case and, in particular, to produce the expert evidence of Dr. Pradhan in the facts of the present case. 50. Further, I am of the view that no charge-sheet at all could be issued on the basis of such evidence as produced on behalf of the disciplinary authority because it appears that there were no materials from the evidence of P.W. 2 Dawa Dhondop and P.W. 3 N. Wangdi, Special Officer, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Darjeeling. 51. As such, in my view, it cannot be suggested that the charges against the petitioner have been proved by the disciplinary authority beyond all reasonable doubts. 52. In the result, the enquiry report dated June 19, 1989 the order of suspension and the second show cause notice dated October 24, 1989 (being annexure 'H' and ‘I’ respectively) are set side by issue of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari. 53. This will not however prevent the disciplinary authority from proceeding with the charge-sheet on the basis of submission of statement of defence filed on behalf of the petitioner afresh if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that still there are materials against the petitioner for such proceedings and in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to produce evidences, both oral and documentary, as referred to hereinabove. 54. 54. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order of suspension should not be given effect to any further as the same has been quashed by this Court and the petitioner should be allowed to resume his duties forthwith preferably within one week from communication of the operative part of this order. 55. The writ petition is allowed in part as aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs. Let a plain copy of the operative part of this judgment, countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be supplied to the learned Advocate for the petitioner on his undertaking to apply for and obtain a certified copy of the judgment for communication to the respondents for compliance. Petition allowed, order of suspension and second show-cause notice set aside, permission given to proceed against the petitioner on a fresh charge-sheet, if disciplinary authority so desires.