NARESH KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Can the enquiry report (Annexure 10) and the order (Annexure 11) imposing certain penalties on the petitioner after a departmental enquiry be quashed as based on evidence ? this is precisely the question raised in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing Annexures 10 and 11. 2. The petitioner during the relevant time was posted as Junior Engineer in the Road Construction division Sahebgenj in Rajmahal section under Rajmahal sub-division, Following an enquiry by the Vigilance Department a show cause was served on all the Junior engineers posted in Sahebganj division asking them to explain as to how payments were made of certain works amounting to Rs. 2000/- in such transaction without technical section, estimate or tender, on receipt of a letter dated 2.8.84 under the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department (Respondent No.2) vide Annexure-1 the petitioner filed his show cause also a representation on 7.1.86 vide Annexures 2 and 2/1. The petitioner denied the allegations stating that the work was complete by the petitioner after due sanction on the orders of the Executive Engineer and all payments were made to the contractors by the Executive Engineer after due verification of the work done. The vigilance Department on completion of the enquiry reported that the works were factually done by the petitioner and other Junior Engineers and in support of this a copy of the relevant portion of the enquiry report submitted by the Vigilance has been filed at Annexure 3. However, a departmental enquiry was started against the petitioner with the petitioner with the Chief Engineer, Yatayat, Road Construction Department, Chotanagpur (Respondent No. 3) as the on quiring officer vide office order dated 7.7.88 under the signature of respondent No.2 as contained in Annexure-6 on the basis of the charge-sheet (Annexure 6/1) After the petitioner was suspended on 2.11.67 he moved this Court against the order of suspension vide C.W.J.C. No. 1218 of 1988. The writ application was allowed vide order dated 12.4.88 with a direction to complete the departmental proceeding within six months and the operation of the suspension order was stayed till the completion of the departmental proceeding. During the departmental enquiry no evidence oral or documentary was brought on the record to substantiate the charge leveled against the petitioner. The writ application was allowed vide order dated 12.4.88 with a direction to complete the departmental proceeding within six months and the operation of the suspension order was stayed till the completion of the departmental proceeding. During the departmental enquiry no evidence oral or documentary was brought on the record to substantiate the charge leveled against the petitioner. The enquiry report (Annexure-10) though based only on conjectures and surmises and not on evidence (etc.) nonetheless did not substantiate the charge against the petitioner. After the submission of the enquiry report four punishments by which the petitioner obviously means penalties were awarded to him vide memo. No.3923 dated 22.6.90 (Annexures-11) under the signature of respondent no.2 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 it is stated that the enquiry report receiver from the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department vide department’s letter No. 1289 dated 6.10.83 disclosed grave charges against the petitioner and the government after examination of the report decided to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The enquiring officer after conclusion of the enquiry submitted the enquiry report which was based on the records and in course of which charge leveled against the petitioner was established. Accordingly the penalties were imposed on the petitioner. With regard to absence of any reason whatsoever, in the order (Annexure-11) imposing penalties, it is stated that there was no necessity to record them as they were all mentioned in the charges leveled in the departmental proceeding. There is a categorical assertion that the petitioner had been punished on the basis of facts found during the departmental proceeding. 4. Sri. R.C. Jha learned counsel for the petitioner described the enquiry report (Annexere-10) as also the order inflicting penalties on the petitioner (Annexure 11) to be based on no evidence whatsoever and therefore, prayed for their quashing. Sri Jha also pointed out that there is nothing in the enquiry report to show that the charge against the petitioner had been found to have been substantiated by the enquiring officer and the respondents had committed on error in proceeding on the assumption that the charge had been substantiated. In the circumstances the impugned order inflicting penalties on the petitioner which gave no reason as to why a view different than the one expressed in the enquiry report was being taken was also fit to be quashed. In the circumstances the impugned order inflicting penalties on the petitioner which gave no reason as to why a view different than the one expressed in the enquiry report was being taken was also fit to be quashed. Sri Narendra Kishore Singh, G.P. III, appearing for the State controverted the aforesaid made on behalf of the petitioner starting that the guilt of the petitioner had been established in course of the enquiry proceeding and that the same was based on the matter as available on the record and there was no necessity for examination of any witness in course of the proceeding. 5. The charge served on the petitioner vide annexure 6/1 and also reproduced in the enquiry report (Annexure-10) related to the irregularity committed by the petitioner in respect of payment made of a total amount of Rs. 41, 282/- without technical sanction and tender or execution of agreement by the contractors. Admittedly no witness was examined either by the department or the delinquent officer in course of the proceeding. The enquiry report appears to be based on the statement in defence made by the petitioner on 11.10.88 and on the basis of an oral hearing given to both the parties on 1.11.88. The enquiring officer for the sake of convenience split up the charge into four parts namely (ka) there was no sanctioned estimate for the work done, (kha) no tender had been issued for the work done, (Ga) word for Rs. 41,212/- had been done without inviting tenders and without execution of agreement after splitting the work done in to Rs. 2000/- each and (Gha) bills were not checked by the Executive Engineer. With regard to (Ka) and (Kha) there was clear finding of the enquiring officer in specific words that these parts of the charges had not been proved. With regard to part (Ga) the enquiring officer had stated that from a perusal of the charge-sheet and written defence it was obvious that there was necessity for getting the work done. In course of discussing the evidence the enquiring officer had referred to the statements made by the Executive engineer in his defence. There was some argument in the Bar whether the statement of the Executive Engineer had been produced in course of the enquiry for being settled upon against the petition. In course of discussing the evidence the enquiring officer had referred to the statements made by the Executive engineer in his defence. There was some argument in the Bar whether the statement of the Executive Engineer had been produced in course of the enquiry for being settled upon against the petition. It was pointed out on behalf of the State that the petitioner cannot raise any such objection because the petitioner himself had made a reference to this document in his defence. Even assuming that it was made a part of the enquiry proceeding the fact remains that the enquiring officer in his report had categorically recorded the finding that the main responsibility for obtaining the formal approval of the Superintending Engineer was that of the Executive Engineer and that for this procedural error the junior Engineer could not be fully held responsible. The aforesaid finding in the words in which they had been made by the enquiring officer do not go to establish that even this part of the charge had been proved against the petitioner. With regard to part (Gha) the enquiring officer has categorically recorded the finding it was not proper to charge the junior Engineer for not getting the bills checked by the higher authority. 6. From a plain reading of the enquiry report it is follows that the charge framed against the petitioner had not been substantiated. The charge framed only one. The enquiring officer who split it up in four parts for convenience had, for reasons mentioned, recorded findings in terms from which the only inference possible was that the charge as a whole had not been substantiated. Sri Sinha learned G.P. III appearing for the State referred to a particular evidence in the enquiry report where there is a mention that the Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer were mainly responsible for the part of the charge referred to as (Ga) in the enquiry report. The argument is based on a misreading of the report. What has been referred to above in the report is the stand of the Engineer in his written defence filed by him in the departmental proceeding being separately drawn against him. It is not a part of the finding of the enquiring officer as the respondents suggest. 7. The argument is based on a misreading of the report. What has been referred to above in the report is the stand of the Engineer in his written defence filed by him in the departmental proceeding being separately drawn against him. It is not a part of the finding of the enquiring officer as the respondents suggest. 7. It is now a well settled principles of law that even the disciplinary proceeding before a domestic tribunal are of quasi judicial character and that the minimum requirement of the rule of natural justice is that the tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence, In this connection the decision of the Apex Court in Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and others (A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1277) may be referred to wherein their Lordships after reiterating the above principles went on to emphasise that suspicion can not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries and that the tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence. In this connection the decision of the Apex Court in Nand Kishore Prasad v. state of Bihar and others (A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1277) may be referred to wherein their Lordships after reiterating the above principles went on to emphasise that suspicion can not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries and that the tribunal should arrive at its concision on the basis of some evidence i.e. evidential material which with some degree of defi9nitenese points to the guilt of the delinquent in respect of the charge against him. In the instant case the enquiry report him. In the instant case the enquiry report does not indicate the existence of any evidence on the basis of which the charge against the petitioner could be said to have been proved. The enquiring officer had proceeded to exonerate the petitioner of the charge exception respect of one of the four parts wherein also he stated that in respect of that part of the charge also the petitioner cannot be held fully responsible. The expression used by the enquiring that even with regard to that part of the charge also he had not found the petitioner guilty. 8. The impugned order (Annexure-11) issued under the signature of respondent No.2 simply mentions that the Govt. The expression used by the enquiring that even with regard to that part of the charge also he had not found the petitioner guilty. 8. The impugned order (Annexure-11) issued under the signature of respondent No.2 simply mentions that the Govt. had reviewed the enquiry report and had taken the following decisions against the petitioner (i) The punishment of censor is awarded. (ii) He will not be passed in work for six fears. (iii) One annual increment shall be stopped with cumulative effect. And (iv) Nothing will be payable during the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance. Annexure-11 does not give any reason as to why the disciplinary authority chose not act on the enquiry report which, as already observed earlier, had completely exonerated the petitioner of the only charge framed in the proceeding. In the circumstances the fact that Annexure 11 is not a speaking order only went to show that there was complete non-application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority to the fact of the case and the order awarding certain penalties to the petitioners was based in a most mechanical manner. Otherwise also since there was no material to substantiate the charge against the petitioner collected in course of enquiry proceeding the impugned order awarding the penalties being based on these report was like the enquiry report based on no evidence. 9. Be that as it may the fact remains that no evidence, oral or documentary, was produced in course of the departmental proceeding and that for that reason alone the enquiry report being based on no evidence is not sustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed. Likewise the impugned order (Annexure-11) awarding the penalities issued on the basis of the enquiry report cannot also be sustained in the eye of law both on the ground that it was based on no evidence as also that on the part of the disciplinary authority to the facts of the case. Both Annexure-10 and 11 deserve to be quashed and I order accordingly. 10. The writ application is thus allowed but there shall be no order as to cost. Application allowed.