JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. All these four writ applications involving question of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioners at the relevant time were taking as Block Education Extension Officer. Departmental proceedings were initiated against them Inter-alia on the allegation that they committed serious irregularities in the matter of nationalization of Schools and recommendation relating to absorption of teachers while working as Block Education Extension Officers. 3. The petitioner of CWJC No. 9729 of 1992 questioned the order of suspension by filing a suit being Title suit No. 40 of 1986 which was decreed. However, the appeal preferred against the said judgment was allowed on the ground that in view of the provisions of Bihar State administrative Tribunal Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. A charge-sheet was issued as against the petitioner on 28.1.1988, a copy whereof is contained in Annexure–3 to the writ application. 4. The petitioners filed a show cause on 23.2.1988. Allegedly the enquiry Officer found that as the decision relating to nationalization of the School and taking over of the services of the teachers was taken at the Directorate level and o concrete proof was available as against the petitioners. Allegedly despite the same, the respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 3.9.1990, whereby the whereunder the petitioners were imposed with the punishment of censor, withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and payment of subsistence allowance only during the period of suspension. 5. The petitioners preferred appeals against the said order and the appellate authority by reason of orders dated 31.5.1991 modified the order of the disciplinary authority by awarding a punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, wherein it has been contended the although the enquiry officer did not find the petitioner guilty but he Directorate found that the petitioner guilty of some charges. 7. By an order dated 15.2.1993, the respondents were directed to produce a copy of the enquiry report. The case was again adjourned on 2.11.1993. On 9.11.1993 this court passed the following order : “It is stated by Mr. 7. By an order dated 15.2.1993, the respondents were directed to produce a copy of the enquiry report. The case was again adjourned on 2.11.1993. On 9.11.1993 this court passed the following order : “It is stated by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that despite the order dated 15.2.1993, enquiry report had not been produced. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the Director, Primary Education has instructed him to pray for adjournment of two months. This application was filed 24.9.1992. As noticed hereinbefore, the aforementioned order direction the State to produce a copy of the enquiry report was passed on 15.2.1993. We have no word to condemn the attitude of respondent No. 3. We fail to understand as to why such a long time is required for the purpose of production of the copy of the enquiry report. By way of last indulgence, put up this case on 23.11.1993. If by that time, copy of the enquiry report is not produced before this court, this court shall consider the desirability of initiating a proceeding under the contempt of courts act against respondent No. 3. 8. Despite the aforementioned direction, the enquiry report has not been produced before us. 9. We have no word to condemn the apathetic attitude of the respondent No. 3 in not complying with the order of this court. It is not understandable as to why enquiry report on the basis whereof, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority has purported to act, has not been produced before this Court. 10. It is now well known that such a conduct on the part of the respondents and that too by the State attracts an adverse inference to the effect that had the said documents been produced, the same had gone against the respondent. 11. In National Insurance Company Vs. Jugal Kisore reported in AIR 1988 SC 719 , the Supreme Court held as follows : "Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to refer to the attitude often adopted by the Insurance Companies, as was adopted even in this case, of not filing a copy of the policy before the Tribunal and even before the High Court in appeal. In this connection what is of significance is that the claimants for compensation under the Act are invariably not possessed of either the policy or a copy thereof. This court has consistently emphasized that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the cause to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant who are under an obligation to act fairly. In many cases even the owner of the vehicle for reasons known to him does not choose to produce the policy or a copy thereof. We accordingly wish to emphasise that in all such case where the Insurance company concerned wishes to take a defence in claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability it should file a copy of the Insurance policy along with its defence. Even in the instant case had it been done so at the appropriate stage necessity of approaching this Court in Civil Appeal would in all probability have been avoided. Filing a copy of the policy, therefore, not only cuts short avoidable litigation but also helps the court in doing justice between the parties. The obligation on the part of the State or its instrumentalities to act fairly can never be over emphasised.” 12. We have, therefore, no other alternative but to draw an adverse inference against the respondents to the effect that had the said report been produced, the same would go against the interest of the respondents. Further the statements made by the petitioner in paragraph 16 of the writ application, wherein the extracts of the findings of the enquiry officer had been quoted, have not been specifically controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. 13. In the counter affidavit it has been stated :– " That with regard to the fact mentioned in paras 15 and 16 of the writ, petition it is stated that the statement said in this para is not totally correct. 13. In the counter affidavit it has been stated :– " That with regard to the fact mentioned in paras 15 and 16 of the writ, petition it is stated that the statement said in this para is not totally correct. The enquiring officer has said in his report that due to lack and shortage of essential and related papers it can not be said the petitioner fully guilty but not recommended to free the petitioner from all the charges. The enquiring Officer had said in his report to charges and the decision of Departmental proceeding as for punishment will be depend on the higher authority that is director of primary Education Bihar.” 14. The statements made in paragraphs 7 are absolutely vague. We also do not appreciate the approach of the enquiry Officer, Either a verdict of guilt or innocence was to be recorded by the enquiry Officer on the basis of the material on records. The finding of the enquiry Officer must be clear and unambiguous. He cannot refer the matter back to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has also not disclosed as to what materials are available on records as against the petitioners. 15. In this situation, we have no other option but to hold that the Enquiry Officer must be held to have found the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against them. 16. It is now well known that a disciplinary authority may differ with the finding of the enquiry officer, but for that he has to assign sufficient and cogent reasons. No reason has been assigned either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority in passing the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 4 and 5 of all the writ applications. 17. Before parting with this case, we may mention that these cases were listed under the heading for judgment, Yesterday i.e. on 1.12.1993. Before pronouncement of the judgment a zerox copy of the records were handed over to us by the Junior counsel of the Government Pleader No. 5. 17. Before parting with this case, we may mention that these cases were listed under the heading for judgment, Yesterday i.e. on 1.12.1993. Before pronouncement of the judgment a zerox copy of the records were handed over to us by the Junior counsel of the Government Pleader No. 5. From a perusal of the said records, it appears that the Regional Deputy Director of Education Kosi Division Saharsha by his letter dated 21st April, 1993 addressed to the Director, Primary Education Human Resources Development Department, Patna stated that the enquiry report submitted by Shri Indu Bhusan Karn was not available in his office which had been sent to the Directorate by the District Education Officer by his letter dated 8.4.1993. It further appears that an authenticated copy of the enquiry report had been sent to the Director Primary Education Officer, Saharsha by his letter dated 8th April, 1993. 18. From a perusal of the said report, it appears that Shri Judu Bhusan Karn had submitted his report dated 14.10.1981 pointing out several irregularities in relation to several clues and recommended that a disciplinary proceeding be initiated against the erring Officers. 19. In this view of the matter, evidently, the said enquiry report is not in relation to the disciplinary proceeding initiated as against the petitioner and thus is wholly irrelevant. 20. We fail to understand as to why the respondents have chosen to with-hold from this court the enquiry report. Such an attitude on the part of the respondents cannot but be condemned. It is now well known that parties to a lis are duty bound to produce before the court of law all the relevant documents in their possession. The duty casts on the State in this regard is still heavier as it is bound to act fairly. 21. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 4 and 5 of all the petitions cannot be sustained, they are accordingly quashed. 22. These writ applications are, therefore allowed but without any order as to costs. I agree. Applications allowed