Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The petitioner through this writ application prays to quash various order as contained in Annexures-5,6 and 8, as also the enquiry report as contained in Annexure-4. 2. Annexure-8 contains a common order passed by the Bihar Administrative tribunal, Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as the Tribunal) in four service cases, including that of the petitioner, whose Service Case was numbered as 156 of 1986. In Service Case No.156 of 1986 aforementioned, the petitioner had assailed the correctness of the order of the Collector, saharsa, as contained in Annexure-5 herein. By Annexure-5, the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked, however, with two punishments as mentioned therein. Annexure-4 contains the enquiry report of the Deputy collector, Sipaul, submitted to the Collector, Saharsa. The charges levelled against the petitioners are contained in Annexure-2. It has been stated therein that on enquiry from the villagers it transpired that he does not come to the school regularly. The petitioner was also asked to file showcause within fifteen days of its receipt. The petitioner was also asked as to whether he intends to say anything orally, which should be mentioned in the show-cause. In his show-cause (as contained in Annexure-3), he refuted the charges stating that it is not known as to who has made the complaint in regard to his alleged absence and that the matter can be decided by a local enquiry. In his show-cause, be also stated that he had gone on casual leave after getting it accepted by Block Education Extension Officer, Triveniganj west. This fact stands supported by part of Annexure-3 itself, No local enquiry, however, was made by the Enquiring Officer as requested by the petitioner. The inqiry report (as contained in Annexure-4) does not show that the authority concerned recorded any evidence in support of the said alligation. He merely doubted the claim of the petitioner in regard to his casual leave on 3-8-1985 on the ground that it was not brought to the notice of the Block Development Officer at the time of inspection oi the School. In regard to the charge that the petitioner does not come regularly to the school, the Enquiring Officer opined that this charge is not clear and does not stand proved. In regard to the charge that the petitioner does not come regularly to the school, the Enquiring Officer opined that this charge is not clear and does not stand proved. Annexure-8, however, does not show that in fact the tribunal has specifically dealt this aspect of the matter though it noted the common submission made by the learned counsel appearing before it for all the petitioners that the Enquiring Officer had not conducted the proceeding in accordance with law inasmuch as he took no evidence and held that no illegality has been committed. 3. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. Mr. Ram Chandra Jhe, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits as follows :- (i) The order as contained in Annexure-8, which was a common order, has been get aside by this court in C. W. J. C. No.6607 of 1988, disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 9-8-1991. Even though the judgment of the said case related to Service Case No.156 of 1986 but the issues being common, the ratio laid down is relevant. (ii) The Enquiring Officer had disbelieved the story of casual leave of the petitioner merely on surmises and conjectures and not on the basis of any evidence produced during the enquiry and that the other charge of the petitioner to the effect that no was not attending the school regularly itself having been disbelieved by the enquiring Officer, the Collector was not justified in inflicting the punishment on the petitioner. 5. No one has appeared on behalf of the Respondents to contest this writ application. 6. It is better to reproduce Pragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the judgment of this court in C. W. J, C. No.6607 of 1988 referred to above :- "5. The writ application is fit to ba allowed on two short questions, namely, the curious manner in which the departmental enquiry was conducted by the Enquiring Officer and the utter lack of any material to substantiate the charges against the petitioner. From the enquiry report, it appears that not a single witness was examined either from the side of the department or from the side of the petitioner, the employee proceeded against. From the enquiry report, it appears that not a single witness was examined either from the side of the department or from the side of the petitioner, the employee proceeded against. The Enquiring Officer appears to have dispensed with appearance of the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner had stated that he had nothing to state beyond what was already said in his show causa. It further appears that the petitioners show cause was referred to the Headmaster for his comment! whereupon the Headmaster wrote his comment that at the relevant time tha register in question was not with the petitioner and the Block Development Officer had not asked for the register from the Headmaster. The endorsement made by the headmaster clearly supported the petitioners stand but the enquiring Officer brushed aside the Headmasters version by stating that it was presumably to protect the Petitioner. 6. It appears to me that the Enquiring Officer was over awed by the fact that the charge emenated from a report submitted by the block Development Officer and against bis words the words of the headmaster were fit to be rejected. Curiously no one was examined in course of the departmental enquiry in support of the charge. If that was to be the position, then I dont understand the purpose of holding an enquiry at all. The enquiry report submitted by the Block Development Officer itself should have been sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty and to punish him on that basis. The purpose of the departmental enquiry was only to establish the charges independently but nothing seems to have been done in that regard. With the Headmaster supporting the case of the petitioner, there was absolutely no matter, before the enquiring Officer to upheld the charges and to hold that the charges wore established against the petitioner. The purpose of the departmental enquiry was only to establish the charges independently but nothing seems to have been done in that regard. With the Headmaster supporting the case of the petitioner, there was absolutely no matter, before the enquiring Officer to upheld the charges and to hold that the charges wore established against the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with in Paragraph 9 of the Tribunals judgment which is as follows : "learned counsel for the respondent in ordet to meet the second point raised by learned counsel for tha petitioner contended that as the petitioner did not like to be beared by the enquiring officer nor any of them chose to adduce, any defence in support of their defence, the enquiring officer after carefully persuing the papers submitted his report and, therefore, no illegality was committed by the enquiring officer by edopting the said procedure in the circumstances of the case. This submission on behalf of the respondents is well founded and is accordingly accepted. " 7. It is difficult for me to accept the reasoning advanced by the learned Tribunal. All the papers that were available before the enquiring Officer were the charge-sheet end the petitioners show cause along with the Headmasters endorsement. There was no other paper or any other evidence in support of the charge. 8. For the reasons stated above, I find and hold that the finding recorded in the enquiry report as contained in Annexure-4 was wholly untanable as based on no evidence and no punishment could be imposed on that basis. " I fully agree with tha reasons given by the learned Single Judge, Brother alam, while allowing the aforementioned writ application and hold that it will apply with the full force in this writ application as well. 7 For the aforementioned reason. I set aside the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-5, 6 and 8 impugned far as they relate to the petitioner. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above, but since no one has appeared to contest it, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.