JUDGMENT Naresh Kumar Sinha, J. The legality of the enquiry report (Annexure 10) and the order dated 30.12.89 (Annexure 11) following a departmental enquiry against the petitioner on certain charges is under challenge in this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash annexure 10 and 11. 2. Only such facts relevant for disposal of this writ application need be noticed. The petitioner during the relevant time was Junior Engineer in the Road Construction Division, Sahebganj at Barhat section. As enquiry was held by the Vigilance department and all Junior engineers including the petitioner posted within the Sahebganj division were asked to explain as to how payment were made of certain works amounting to Rs.2000/- each without technical sanction, estimate and tender vide letter dated 2.8.84 issued under the signature of the Engineer-In Chief, Road Construction Deptt. (Respondent No. 2) a copy of which is Annexure-l. The petitioner submitted his show cause explaining his position that all the works done after preparation of estimate and after inviting tenders and after due sanction of the estimate by the competent authority. Though the vigilance department after a full enquiry reported that the petitioner had completed the works, nontheless a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner with the Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Chotanagpur (Respondent No. 3) as the enquiring officer vide letter dated 7.7.1988. A copy of the said letter as also the charge-sheet dated 4.7.1988 served on the petitioner are Annexures 2 and 3 respectively. This was surprising for the Vigilance report a copy of the extract portion of which has been filed as Annuure-4 had suggested that the petitioner had completed the works. After the petitioner was suspended on 22.12.87 he tiled C.W.J.C No 1214 of 1988 which was disposed of on 12.4.88 vide Annexure 8 with a direction to complete the departmental proceeding within six months after staying the operation of the suspension order till the conclusion of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner filed his show cause dated 11.10.88 (Annexure 9) before the enquiring officer stating therein that he was innocent and the charges levelled against him had no legs to stand. The petitioner filed his show cause dated 11.10.88 (Annexure 9) before the enquiring officer stating therein that he was innocent and the charges levelled against him had no legs to stand. As per the enquiry report (Annexure 10) the charges framed were found not to have been substantiated except one charge which was based on a general and vague allegation that there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting his accounts. The enquiring officer, it is alleged, did not record any evidence nor brought any document on the record of the departmental proceeding and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to have a say in the matter submitted the report which was a gross violation of relevant departmental Rules find Regulations and also the principles of natural justice. The report which found only one vague charge substantiated against the petitioner was based on conjectures and surmise. On the basis of the enquiry report (Annexure-10) four penalties were awarded to the petitioner by the impugned order i.e. office order bearing No. 259 dated 30.12.89 (Annexure-11). The petitioner claims that neither a copy of the enquiry report nor a copy of the order was ever served on him and that he came to know of both the enquiry report as also the impugned order only after receiving an order dated 7.10.91 (Annexure-12) transferring him to non work post in pursuance of one of the punishments awarded by the impugned order. Since the enquiry report (Annexure- 10) is based on no evidence And the enquiry proceeding having been conducted against the due procedure established under the law, the impugned order (Annelure-11) which was based on the enquiry report deserves to be quashed, The petitioner also claims that before passing of the impugned order inflicting the punishment, he was given no notice to explain his position. The impugned order is also said to have been initiated on the ground that the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment had recorded no reasons for differing with the report of the enquiring officer while praying for quashing Annexures 10 and 11 the petitioner has further prayed for quashing of all ancillary orders issued in pursuance of the impugned order. 3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the enquiry report was received from Cabinet (Vigilance) Department vide department's letter. No. 1289 dated 6.8.93 disclosing grave charges against the petitioner. 3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the enquiry report was received from Cabinet (Vigilance) Department vide department's letter. No. 1289 dated 6.8.93 disclosing grave charges against the petitioner. After examination of the enquiry report a decision was taken and the departmental proceeding was in fact started against the petitioner in accordance with law. The enquiry report submitted by the enquiring officer was on the basis of records examined by the enquiring officer. It was found during the enquiry that the petitioner had maintained the accounts up-to-date and that the enquiry report in so far as it related to the charge of delay in maintaining the accounts up-to-date was based on records examined at the time of enquiry and which required no witnesses to be examined. The impugned order inflicting punishments is said to have been passed on the basis of the fact finding report of the enquiring officer and the claim or the petitioner that he was not served with copy of Annexures 10 and 11 is denied. It is asserted that the petitioner had been found guilty in respect of the allegation No. 2 which obviously refers to charge No.2 and be had been awarded the punishment as per the decision of the Government for the same. 4. Sri R.C. Jha learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the legality of the impugned order (Annexure 11) as also the enquiry report (Annexure-10) on which it is based mainly on the ground that the enquiry report is based on no evidence. Charge No.2 which alone is said to have been substantiated against the petitioner in course of the enquiry proceeding is also described as general and vague. The impugned order inflicting the punishment is attacked on the further ground that is was a non speaking one and did not disclose that the disciplinary authority had applied his mind to the facts of the case before inflicting the punishment. All these contentions were refused as not tenable either in law or on facts by Sri Rajendranath Jha learned counsel appearing for the state respondent. 5. From the copy of the charge sheet (Annexure- 3) served on the petitioner it appears that the departmental enquiry was Conducted in respect of as many as three charges mentioned therein. For reasons mentioned in the enquiry report (Annexure-10), the charge Nos. 5. From the copy of the charge sheet (Annexure- 3) served on the petitioner it appears that the departmental enquiry was Conducted in respect of as many as three charges mentioned therein. For reasons mentioned in the enquiry report (Annexure-10), the charge Nos. 1 and 3 were found not to have been substantiated Charge No, 2 which was reportedly found substantiated reads as follows : "Inhone Lekha Ko Adyatan nahi rakha. Attah ye lekha Adyatanne nahi rekhne ke liye doshi hain". The enquiring officer (Respondent No.3) while examining the aforesaid charge against the petitioner his stated that the petitioner in his defence had stated that he had submitted all the accounts on time The enquiring officer then proceeded to record another statement of the petitioner that on account of certain reasons which he bad explained in detail some accounts were not submitted on time. The enquiring officer then proceeded to observe that it was obvious from the letter dated 16.11.82 of the Executive ‘Engineer that in November 1982 the petitioner had made the accounts up-to-date, However, the enquiring officer proceeded to draw the inference that there cannot be two opinions that there had been delay in submission of accounts by the petitioner and that he could not, therefore. be acquitted of the said charge. The contents of the enquiry report left no room for doubt that no witness either on behalf of the department or on behalf of the petitioner in defence were examined. There is no mention in the enquiry report that any document on the basis of which the department relied upon to support the charges had been formally brought on record. Since the matter relates to the charge No.2 alone all referred to above it is also evident from the report of the enquiring officer that the said charge were not found substantiated on the basis of any evidence oral or documentary and that the inference with regard to the guilt of the petitioner had been drawn only on the basis of a statement made by him in his defence against charge No.2. Another important aspect of the case is that while charge No.2 related to the guilt of the petitioner in not maintaining the accounts up to date the finding of the enquiring officer in his report is only with regard to delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting the accounts. Another important aspect of the case is that while charge No.2 related to the guilt of the petitioner in not maintaining the accounts up to date the finding of the enquiring officer in his report is only with regard to delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting the accounts. Non-maintenance of accounts up-to date or failure to submit such account on time are two different things. In other words the finding of the enquiring officer has nothing to do with the nature of the charge framed and to that extent it can be argued for very good reason that the enquiring officer had also not found charge No. 2 substantiated against the petitioner. 6. It was argued that charge-No.2 was so general and vague that it had completely deprived the petitioner of any reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the said charge. The language of charge No.2 already noticed earlier supports such a conclusion. All that the charge stated was that the petitioner bad not maintained the accounts up to date and hence he was guilty for the same. There is nothing in the charge to indicate the nature of the accounts not maintained or the period involved. Such a general and vague charge gives no notice of the allegations made against the petitioner and hence deprives him of reasonable opportunity to explain the charge. Charge No 2 being general and vague any finding of guilt of the petitioner recorded on the basis of such a charge would stand vitiated on this ground alone 7. The impugned order (Annexure-11) is said to be vitiated on the ground that no reasons had been recorded therein for inflicting the punishment and there was nothing therein to suggest that the disciplinary authority hid applied his mind to the facts of the case before imposing the penalties Annexure-11 issued under the signature of the Engineer in Chief (Respondent No.2) is an office order. All that it states is that the Government had reviewed the enquiry report received in the departmental proceeding conducted against the petitioner and in pursuance which following decisions are taken : (i) He is given the punishment of censor. (ii) His one annual increment is stopped, with cumulative effect. (iii) He shall not be kept in work for six years. (iv) Nothing would be payable except the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. (ii) His one annual increment is stopped, with cumulative effect. (iii) He shall not be kept in work for six years. (iv) Nothing would be payable except the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The impugned order nowhere refers to the particular charge namely charge No.2 that had been found substantiated in the enquiry report, It may be recalled that the petitioner along with charge No.2 had also been proceeded within the departmental proceeding in respect or two other charges admittedly more serious in nature. There is nothing in the impugned order to indicate that the disciplinary authority who reviewed the enquiry report had applied his mind to the facts of the case specially those related to charge No.2. It is true that the disciplinary authority is not bound to accept all the findings of the enquiring officer but then in doing so it must appear from the order itself that the disciplinary authority had applied his mind to the facts of the else it may be recalled that the petitioner had been charged for not maintaining the accounts upto date, but the findings recorded against him was that be had not submitted the accounts in time. In shore the impugned order inflicting the punishments two or which were serious and stringent namely the award of punishment of censor and the stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect appeared to have been passed in a most mechanical manner and without application of mind to the fact of the case. The impugned order has thus rightly been described to be vitiated on this ground also. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention referred to above has relied on a decision in Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and ors. A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1277) preferred against a decision of this Court. In the case cited the Apex Court while dealing with the matter of disciplinary proceeding before the domestic Tribunal referred to the principles crystalised by Judicial decisions on the subject and then proceeded to observe as follows :- “8. A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1277) preferred against a decision of this Court. In the case cited the Apex Court while dealing with the matter of disciplinary proceeding before the domestic Tribunal referred to the principles crystalised by Judicial decisions on the subject and then proceeded to observe as follows :- “8. The first of these principles is that disciplinary Proceedings before a domestic tribunal are of a quasi-Judicial character, therefore, the minimum requirement of the rules of natural justice is that the tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence, i.e. evidential material which with some decree of definiteness points to the guilt of the delinquent in respect of the charge against him. Suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquires.” It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instance case no evidence was produced to substantiate the charge against the petitioner and that the finding of the enquiring officer in so far as charge No. 2 found to have been substantiated against the petitioner was based on more conjectures and surmises. In my opinion learned counsel for the State has not been able to show that the enquiry report was based on evidence adduced in the enquiry proceeding and that the impugned order inflicting punishments disclosed that the disciplinary authority had applied his mind to the facts appearing in the enquiry report. 9. Thus for the reasons mentioned above the enquiry report (Annexure 10) stands vitiated on account of being in base on no evidence whatsoever and also because charge No.2 was general and vague and not capable of giving the petitioner any opportunity of defending himself against the same. It was also vitiated on the ground that the finding of the enquiring officer is on a point different than the subject matter of the charge. The Impugned order (Annexure-11) imposing punishment on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority is also vitiated on account of non-application of mind of the disciplinary authority to the facts of the case. Both Annexures- 10 and 11 are thus not sustainable in the eye of law and are quashed accordingly. 10. The writ application is thus allowed but in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.