Judgment :- The petitioner originally challenged an order passed on 25.4.1990. However, preferred an appeal to the Board and the Board dismissed the appeal on 6.9.1990 W.M.P. No.8586 of 1991 has been filed to amend the prayer so as to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 6.9.1990. 2. The petitioner was working as Executive Engineer during May-July, 1981 in R.W.S. Division, Coimbatore. In the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General for 1983 had been pointed out that 17 heavy duty pumpsets purchased in R.W.S. Division, Coimbatore, during May-July, 1981 at a costs of Rs.1.28 lacs in order to supply drinking water to problem villages had remained unutilised till March, 1984. The report further stated that 17 heavy duty pumpsets were purchased on a report given by the petitioner to Superintending Engineer, Nilgiris Circle on 13.2.1981. The Superintending Engineer 14.3.1981 placed orders on a firm in Coimbatore to supply 62 pumpsets for a value Rs.3,83,850 out of which 17 heavy duty pumpsets worked to Rs.1,27,600. The successor the petitioner inquired into his counterpart in Urban Division in Coimbatore in July, 1982 whether the 17 centrifugal pumpsets of 15 H.P. or 20 H.P. not normally required maintenance works were suitable for their works and for being transferred to them. He also addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer, Stores Division, Madras, in July 1982 his consent to transfer these heavey duty 17 pumpsets to the stores for being used elsewhere. The pumpsets were transferred ultimately to the Stores Division, Madras in 1985. 3. On this review of the audit, two charges were framed against the petitioner: “(i) that he failed to assess the actual requirements of pumpsets for power pumps maintenance as evidenced from the fact that the centrifugal ranging from 15 H.P. to 20 which are not normally required for power pump maintenance were indented by him, and (ii) that he caused a loss of Rs.1.28 lacs to the Board as evidenced from the fact that these 17 pumpsets procured based on his requirements, are still unutilised.” under Regulation of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1974 on 30.10.1989. 4. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.11.1989. In the explanation, he has stated that he has not mentioned the horse power of the pumpsets in his letter, but he left it to Superintending Engineer and other superior officers. 4. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.11.1989. In the explanation, he has stated that he has not mentioned the horse power of the pumpsets in his letter, but he left it to Superintending Engineer and other superior officers. He also stated that the policy of Government was to purchase 10% of the existing pumpsets and to keep them as spares neither the Government, nor then Circle Officer has asked him to opt for pumpsets of lesser power. It was also stated by the petitioner that if it was kept in the Division itself, it could have been transferred back to the Panchayat Union when the entire maintenance pumpsets was handed over to Panchayat Unions during December, 1982 and that during short period of tenure in the Division after the supply of pumpsets, he could not make progress for the utilisation of pumpsets. He bad requested also for an oral inquiry. An inquiry was held on 9.1.1990 and after that, he submitted a written statement containing the above contentions extracted, on 9.1.1990. 5. After going through the explanation, the disciplinary authority, the Managing Director the Board has held that it is a classic case of total lack of application of mind, that accused officer has placed the indent without assessing clearly the need for the same, the petitioner has not given any convincing reason for having ordered higher horse power motors and that out of 17 High duty horse power pumpsets ordered, 15 have remained It is also stated in the order that it is a pity that the Superintending Engineer did not care check up the actual need, but he seems to have forwarded the list to the Superintending Engineer (C.R. 50). So, purely on the ground of non-application of mind, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to be a technical export and he has also failed in discharging his administrative responsibility and came to conclusion that he was negligent and needed exemplary punishment. So, purely on the ground of non-application of mind, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to be a technical export and he has also failed in discharging his administrative responsibility and came to conclusion that he was negligent and needed exemplary punishment. Holding so, he passed an order reverting the petitioner as an Assistant Executive Engineer for a period of months with effect from 1.5.1990 and his pay in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer shall be fixed at Rs.2,500 in the scale of Rs.2200-75-2500-100-4000 and the period reversion as Assistant Executive Engineer shall operate to postpone his future increments the higher post of Executive Engineer for 18 months, which will commence after the present stoppage of increments for 3 years with cumulative effect. 6. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 18.5.1990 and the dismissed the appeal on 6.9.1990. In the appellate order, it is stated that the two relating to wrong assessment of requirement of pumpsets and locking up of Board for the materials were proved beyond doubt and that the petitioner was squarely responsible for the procurement of pumpsets not required and consequently, it was a loss to the Board further held that the petitioner has been given every opportunity and he raised any objection to the procedure followed, nor complained anything about reasonable opportunity. Holding so, the appeal was rejected. The petitioner, as stated, challenges this order. 7. Mr.V.K.Muthusami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner puts in the forefront argument based on Art.14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel refers me to the passed by the disciplinary authority, especially in paragraph No.12 of the order disciplinary authority pitying the Superintending Engineer for not caring to check actual need and forwarding the list to the Superintending Engineer and points out that disciplinary authority is then aware that the Superintending Engineer is also responsible the alleged loss to the Board and if it is, the letting of the Superintending Engineer alone framing charges against the petitioner which are vague in nature, is arbitrary and Art.14 of the Constitution. The learned counsel further points out that under Rule 5, penalties can be inflicted on the Officers for any misconduct specified in Regulation good and sufficient reason. The learned counsel further points out that under Rule 5, penalties can be inflicted on the Officers for any misconduct specified in Regulation good and sufficient reason. The learned counsel argues that the charges framed against petitioner cannot be said to be a good or a sufficient reason by any reasonable person no conduct adumbrated under Regulation 6 and has been committed by the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that under Rule 9(b), an oral inquiry has to be held that inquiry, oral evidence has to be adduced. It is also pointed out that the Inquiring shall ask in writing the delinquent employee immediately after the inquiry is over whether had a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case, and that if he has any complaint regard, the Inquiring Officer will inquire into the complaint and set right the matter. It pointed out that in all cases where an inquiry is conducted, sufficient record of evidence a statement of findings and grounds thereof should be kept. Learned counsel states that rule has been violated so far as the case on hand is concerned. It is also stated learned counsel that the respondent should have examined the subordinate Mr.Raghavan, who collected the materials. It is also stated by the learned counsel Superintending Engineer alone is responsible for inviting tenders with particulars in of the power pumpsets to be supplied by the indenting dealers and the act of singling the petitioner is unjustifiable and discriminatory. The learned counsel points out that order itself shows that the petitioner has been made a scape-goat and his superior has let out. It is also pointed out that it is nobody’s case that any misappropriation has committed by the petitioner and after the issue of charge memo, out of 17 pumpsets, were utilised. The learned counsel points out that the charges are framed on the audit report of the Public Accounts Committee and a copy of the report of the Committee not been supplied to the petitioner and it amounts to violation of principle of natural It is also pointed out that the act of sending pumpsets to the Stores Division was subserved by the successor of the petitioner, as otherwise the pumpsets could have utilised in between 1981 and 1984. It is also pointed out that the disciplinary action been taken in the year 1989 when the purchase was made somewhere in 1980-81 delay in taking the disciplinary action has to be taken note of by this Court and the petitioner has been made a victim for the negligence of the Board in allowing to lapse 5 years itself from taking any action against the Superintending Engineer. 8. Per contra, Mr.Saibarath, learned counsel appearing for the Board contends that petitioner is expected to check the correctness of the requirements with reference actual need furnished by the Assistant Executive Engineer, but he merely forwarded report of the Assistant Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer without scrutiny. It is stated that the Superintending Engineer called for details of the power and the petitioner forwarded the requirements in September, 1980 without application of mind whether the 17 pumpsets are required. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Board that the 17 pumpsets remained unutilised from the year 1980 and an admitted fact that heavy duty pumpsets are not used in Coimbatore Division maintenance work. It is stated that the charges are framed on the basis of documentary evidence especially the audit report for 1983-84 and they are not vogue in nature. According to the learned counsel for the Board, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner the issue of charge memo and after the inquiry which was held on 9.1.1990. It is stated the learned counsel that no one on behalf of the Department was examined as the were framed against the petitioner on the basis of documentary evidence. The petitioner not raise any objection to the procedure followed at the time of oral inquiry. charges were framed based on documentary evidence, no departmental witnesses examined, nor the petitioner wanted any witness to be examined at the time of oral The petitioner was allowed to peruse the records and an oral inquiry was conducted. stated that the charges are framed on the ground that wrong assessment on the petitioner ended in locking of the funds of the Board for a long time and as such, it said that the charges are very vague and the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner correct. Learned counsel says that no show cause notice is required to be issued passing final orders after the amendment was made. 9. Learned counsel says that no show cause notice is required to be issued passing final orders after the amendment was made. 9. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both sides. A look charges extracted above shows that the charges have been framed for the alleged of excess number of pumpsets in 1980. The charges were framed on the basis report, 1983-84 after a lapse of 5 years i.e., in 1989. So, virtually the charges are after 9 years after the commission of alleged offence, i.e., non-application of mind. is sufficient in my view to set aside the order of punishment. A charge memo issued years could not be sustained, more so when it is based on documentary evidence the Department wanted to prove that the purchase of 17 pumpsets was in excess, have proved by independent evidence-oral evidence to that effect in the inquiry. necessary for the petitioner to ask the Department to lead the evidence. It Department to prove that the charges are correct. Then only comes the defence on of the Officer. In this case, it is curious that the Department has proceeded correspondence and the statements made by the Officers who succeeded the petitioner the pumpsets are in excess and they are not needed. If the Department has let in by the Officers concerned between 1982 and 1989 and has proved what the petitioner was wrong, it should have been appreciated. It has not been done in this case. It the fundamental principles of natural justice that merely because facts are admitted indisputable, it does not follow that natural justice need not be observed-see S.L.Kapoor Jagmohan, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 136: (1980)4 S.C.C. 379 . So this is a case in my view impugned order has to be set aside on the ground of violation of principle of natural. 10. That apart, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order has the basis of Art.14. From the order passed by the disciplinary authority, it is clear disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the list sent by the petitioner not final; at any rate, the disciplinary authority thought that it is not necessary to action against the Superintending Engineer and the petitioner can be made scape in my view offends Art.14 of the Constitution. From the order passed by the disciplinary authority, it is clear disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the list sent by the petitioner not final; at any rate, the disciplinary authority thought that it is not necessary to action against the Superintending Engineer and the petitioner can be made scape in my view offends Art.14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had an occasion consider a case like this in E.S.Reddy v. Chief Secretary, Government of A.P., A.I.R. S.C. 1550. That was a case against the Judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra There, the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that in suspension, there was no justification for differential treatment meted out to one leaving another officer. However, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High reversed that. Against that, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. observations made in that judgment, it is clear that if an officer alone is punished case (suspended) and not the other officer, who is alleged to be the co-accused offending Art.14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court observed at page 1552 thus: "In compliance to this Court’s order, Shri P.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for Government places before us the letter of the State Government dated May 2, 1984 The application of mind whether the 17 pumpsets are required. It is stated by the learned for the Board that the 17 pumpsets remained unutilised from the year 1980 and it admitted fact that heavy duty pumpsets are not used in Coimbatore Division for maintenance work. It is stated that the charges are framed on the basis of documentary evidence especially the audit report for 1983-84 and they are not vogue in nature. According learned counsel for the Board, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner after issue of charge memo and after the inquiry which was held on 9.1.1990. It is stated learned counsel that no one on behalf of the Department was examined as the charges framed against the petitioner on the basis of documentary evidence. The petitioner raise any objection to the procedure followed at the time of oral inquiry. Since the were framed based on documentary evidence, no departmental witnesses were examined, nor the petitioner wanted any witness to be examined at the time of oral inquiry. petitioner was allowed to peruse the records and an oral inquiry was conducted. The petitioner raise any objection to the procedure followed at the time of oral inquiry. Since the were framed based on documentary evidence, no departmental witnesses were examined, nor the petitioner wanted any witness to be examined at the time of oral inquiry. petitioner was allowed to peruse the records and an oral inquiry was conducted. It stated that the charges are framed on the ground that wrong assessment on the part petitioner ended in locking of the funds of the Board for a long time and as such, it cannot said that the charges are very vague and the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner correct. Learned counsel says that no show cause notice is required to be issued passing final orders after the amendment was made. 9. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both sides. A look charges extracted above shows that the charges have been framed for the alleged purchase of excess number of pumpsets in 1980. The charges were framed on the basis of report, 1983-84 after a lapse of 5 years i.e., in 1989. So, virtually the charges are after 9 years after the commission of alleged offence, i.e., non-application of mind. This is sufficient in my view to set aside the order of punishment. A charge memo issued years could not be sustained, more so when it is based on documentary evidence alone. the Department wanted to prove that the purchase of 17 pumpsets was in excess, it have proved by independent evidence-oral evidence to that effect in the inquiry. It necessary for the petitioner to ask the Department to lead the evidence. It is Department to prove that the charges are correct. Then only comes the defence on the of the Officer. In this case, it is curious that the Department has proceeded purely correspondence and the statements made by the Officers who succeeded the petitioner the pumpsets are in excess and they are not needed. If the Department has let in evidence by the Officers concerned between 1982 and 1989 and has proved what the petitioner was wrong, it should have been appreciated. It has not been done in this case. It is the fundamental principles of natural justice that merely because facts are admitted indisputable, it does not follow that natural justice need not be observed-see S.L.Kapoor Jagmohan, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 136: (1980)4 S.C.C. 379 . It has not been done in this case. It is the fundamental principles of natural justice that merely because facts are admitted indisputable, it does not follow that natural justice need not be observed-see S.L.Kapoor Jagmohan, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 136: (1980)4 S.C.C. 379 . So this is a case in my view where impugned order has to be set aside on the ground of violation of principle of natural 10. That apart, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order has to the basis of Art.14. From the order passed by the disciplinary authority, it is clear that disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the list sent by the petitioner not final; at any rate, the disciplinary authority thought that it is not necessary to take action against the Superintending Engineer and the petitioner can be made scape in my view offends Art.14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had an occasion consider a case like this in E.S.Reddy v. Chief Secretary, Government of A.P., A.I.R. S.C. 1550. That was a case against the Judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh. There, the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that in a suspension, there was no justification for differential treatment meted out to one officer leaving another officer. However, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High reversed that. Against that, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. From observations made in that judgment, it is clear that if an officer alone is punished case (suspended) and not the other officer, who is alleged to be the co-accused it offending Art.14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court observed at page 1552 thus: "In compliance to this Court’s order, Shri P.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the Government places before us the letter of the State Government dated May 2, 1984 The report of the Director-General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh dated March 1956. It appears from the letter that sanction of the Central Government is necessary Sec.6(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for the prosecution of R.Parthasarathy, I.A.S., and that of the State Government of Maharashtra for the prosecution of P.Abraham. We have perused the report of the Director-General and it cannot be said that the levelled against the petitioner are groundless. We have perused the report of the Director-General and it cannot be said that the levelled against the petitioner are groundless. It is somewhat surprising that the petitioner alone should have been placed under suspension by the State Government contemplated departmental enquiry under Rule 13 of the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 and not the other two officers T.V.Choundhary and Choudhary, the then Managing Director who it appears are equally culpable. The matter adjourned till after vacation to enable the State Government to obtain the requisite from the Central Government for the prosecution of R.Parthasarathy and that prosecution of P.Abraham under Sec.6(1)(a) of the Act. Shri P.Ram Reddy, learned for the State Government shall in the meanwhile convey to the State Government concern expressed by this Court that the petitioner alone could have been placed suspension and not the other officers who are alleged to be co-accused. We are afraid, Stale Government does not pass any order placing the other officers under suspension may become necessary for the Court to revoke the suspension of the petitioner at the hearing." From the observations, it is clear that when two persons are responsible, one alone be made a scape-goat. In this case, a reading of the punishing authority clearly shows the Superintending Engineer has been let off pitying him, at the same time inflicting punishment on the petitioner. In my view, this itself is sufficient to show that the passed in this case offends Art.14 of the Constitution, and has got to be set aside ground alone. 11. That apart, the Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal in a very casual When an accused officer files an appeal against an order of punishment, the Appellate Authority is bound to consider every point and pass a reasoned order. In this case, that the Board has held that the petitioner is squarely responsible for the procuring pumpsets not required. I am not able to follow this conclusion, since the disciplinary authority says that the Superintending Engineer has forwarded the list sent by the petitioner without verification. One other ground I notice in this order is that the order consists punishments which I think, the disciplinary authority cannot inflict upon the petitioner on this ground also, the impugned order is to be set aside. In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside. One other ground I notice in this order is that the order consists punishments which I think, the disciplinary authority cannot inflict upon the petitioner on this ground also, the impugned order is to be set aside. In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. However, will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.