A. CHAKRABARTI, J. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension, dated 14-2-1994 passed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner. 2. The case made out in the writ petition is that the petition working in the post of Store Keeper under the respondents at Haldwani, Naini Tal refused to submit to the pressure of the higher authorities in the matter of doing illegal acts for unlawful gain and as a result the Executive Engineer Electrical Stores Division, Haldwani threatened the petitioner that he would be taught a lesson for such act. On 22-9- 1992 at about 2 p. m. the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 10-9-1992 at annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The charge-sheet relates to an allegation pertaining to transaction between 1981- 1986 and according to the petitioner the charges are not only false but also baseless and untrue. It has been contended that the respondents did not make available the relevant records although the petitioner asked for inspection of the same as the incidents alleged in the charge-sheet were very old. Ultimately although he did not get inspection of all the relevant record the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 5-3-1993 before the Enquiry Officer. Although the petitioner was not inform ed about the enquiry any further he was served with an order of suspension dated 14-2-1994 at Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner has complain ed about the purported satisfaction recorded in the impugned order and the fact that the enquiry report could not be submitted as there was no knowledge of the petitioner in respect of any further upon the said charge-sheet. The petitioner has contended that he had been implicated in the said case due to design of corrupt higher officers and at the instance the departmental pro ceeding is being delayed so that the petitioner may not resort to the court of law. 3. The respondents contested the proceeding by filing a counter affidavit. It has been admitted in the counter affidavit by the respondents that the charge-sheet relating to incidents of period between 1981- 1986 was served on 22-9-1992. 3. The respondents contested the proceeding by filing a counter affidavit. It has been admitted in the counter affidavit by the respondents that the charge-sheet relating to incidents of period between 1981- 1986 was served on 22-9-1992. It has been further contended that the petitioners alleged offences were detected at the relevant time and the first letter asking for relevant records was written on 13-8- 1988 followed by several letters of 1985 and 1986. It has further been contended that for filing reply the petitioner was granted time and its extension from time to time and although the last date was granted till 31-10-1992, the petitioner filed his reply only on 5-3-1993. The respondents further contended that the records were made available to the petitioner for inspection as and when demanded. It has further been contended that after receiving reply from the petitioner on 5-3-1993 the same was found unsatisfactory and hence the Executive Engineer being respondent No. 2 who was the deponent of the said affidavit proceeded to make enquiry giving notice to the petitioner and the same had been concluded and the report dated 4-9-1993 at annexure No. C. A. 1 had been submitted. It is also contended that upon prima facie satisfaction from the material on record that there are serious charges of defalcation made by the petitioners and of not discharging his duties and not complying with the order of higher authorities, the departmental proceeding was proposed to be taken and the petitioner was rightly suspended. It has also been contended that before submission of the said report the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and thereafter the enquiry was completed. 4. The petitioner filed his rejoinder affidavit denying the contention made in the counter-affidavit and stating several relevant facts for the purpose of showing contradiction in the contention of the respondents. The petitioner enclosed his reply to the charge-sheet with the rejoinder affidavit as Annexure No. 1. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents. Parties have agreed that as the affidavits have been exchanged the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage. 6. The petitioner enclosed his reply to the charge-sheet with the rejoinder affidavit as Annexure No. 1. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents. Parties have agreed that as the affidavits have been exchanged the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage. 6. Although various arguments had been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the proceeding itself but in view of the fact that the writ petition itself has challenged the suspension order only I restrict my consideration to the order of suspension only. The petitioners contention mainly is that the actions of the respondents are mala fide and the same is by way of impugned order because he did not comply with the illegal demand of the respondents and particularly the respondent No. 3. The petitioners second contention is that only because of such reason the charge-sheet was issued on 22-9- 1992 on stale allegation of a period between 1981-86 and without complying with the requirement of the principle of natural justice and without showing the relevant records the petitioner was compelled to file his reply to the charge-sheet although the petitioner asked for inspection of records as the charges were of such earlier period. Learned counsel of the petitioner contended that in fact no enquiry was held and no report was made available to the petitioner but only to harass him at the time of his retirement which is due on 28-2-1995 hurriedly a suspension order was passed a few days before his retirement on 14-2-1994. The petitioner contended that if the contentions of the respondents are right and the enquiry report has been sub mitted on 4-9-1993 there was no reason for not completing the disciplinary proceeding itself long before the retirement of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the purported report of enquiry being C. A. I. discloses the illegality committed by the respondents and the conten tions therein and contrary to the averments made in the counter affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents denied the allegation of mala fide and bias and also contended that the suspension order was duly passed upon prima facie satisfaction of the charges as to involvement of the petitioner in the illegal things. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents denied the allegation of mala fide and bias and also contended that the suspension order was duly passed upon prima facie satisfaction of the charges as to involvement of the petitioner in the illegal things. 8. Upon hearing the parties and perusing the material on records I find that the respondents have made several contradictory statements. Further while denying the contention of the petitioner as to no enquiry and no opportunity to the petitioner although statements have been made but none of the documents in support thereof has been annexed to the counter affidavit. On enquiry by the Court the learned counsel for the respondents also disclosed that the records of the proceedings are not available for production in course of hearing. About the production of records of inspection to the petitioner on his demand the counter affidavit says that the petitioner was given inspec tion of records on 18-11-1992 on first occasion and thereafter before 2-2-1992 further records were shown and by letter dated 2-2- 1993 the petitioner was directed to submit his reply by 12-2-1993. Annexure No. 1 to the Counter Affidavit records as follows : "complete records as desired by Sri C. P. Sharma, S. K. was collected and shown to Sri Sharma on 22-7- 1993. Sri Sharma was asked to submit his replies if he so desired after scrutiny of the relevant records but no reply has been sent by him in this regard. In view of the above the report in respect of charge- sheet has been prepared and is submitted herewith as Appendix-L The report is submitted showing the charges brief reply of Sri C, P. Sharma to the charges; the findings after scrutiny of records and comments/ recommendation in the matter. " In view of the above statements I am of the opinion that the respondents have made self-contradictory statements and only materials which could have resolved the uncertainly and contradiction being original records of the pro ceeding having not been produced I do not believe that the correct position has been disclosed by the respondents. Apparently the respondents have proceeded on the basis of no reply sent by tae petitioner and at the same time the reply of the petitioner was being considered and in such circumstances I do not find that the respondent in passing the impugned order actually acted bonafide. Apparently the respondents have proceeded on the basis of no reply sent by tae petitioner and at the same time the reply of the petitioner was being considered and in such circumstances I do not find that the respondent in passing the impugned order actually acted bonafide. Further the enquiry report as enclosed in the counter affidavit does not disclose any material in support of the charge-sheet nor any record in proof of the charges. 9. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his conten tion challenging the enquiry report itself and cited certain rulings the case of Chandra Bhushan v. State of U. P. and others reported in 1993 (3) UPLBEC 1734 but as the writ petition has not been filed challenging the enquiry proceeding I do not think that the said aspect can be considered in the present case. 10. In the aforesaid circumstance I am of the opinion that the materials disclosed do not support any prima facie satisfaction in accordance with law as such the whole basis of prima facie satisfaction before issuing the impugned order being not available the impugned order cannot stand. 11. Further the respondent have failed to disclose as to why after submission of the enquiry report on 4- 9-1993 the disciplinary proceeding could not be completed and the impugned order had to be issued on 14-2-1994 instead of completing the disciplinary proceeding itself. 12. In the aforesaid circumstance the order of suspension impugned in the present petition cannot stand and the same is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .