This writ application has been filed challenging the legality and validity of order dated 19.3.91 Annexure B to the writ application issued by the respondent No.3 removing the petitioner from service and order dated 13.6.91 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. Annexure B to the writ application is quoted below : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 2. On appeal the appellate authority came to the following findings : "It is a very implausible story in which a Member of a uniformed service admits his unauthorised absence from duty for a period of 1 year 3 months because he felt mentally upset on hearing about the illness of his wife. He continued to absent from duty even when his wife became alright as he himself became unwell. It is surprising that during this period of 1 year 3 months he could not find time to inform his Controlling Officer about the reasons of his absence nor did he report to the Railway Medical Officer for treatment as required under Rules. He also choose to ignore the charge sheet received and acknowledged by him and also ignored the first two dates of the hearing. He finally attended on 15.2.91 after receiving the third notice for hearing indicating that this was the last charge. Though he attended on this date, but he could not given any reasonable explanation of deserting his duty post and for remaining absent without permission and without intimation. Even the Medical Certificate produced by him for the entire period of absence is an after thought as he had not received the treatment from the authorised Medical Officer nor did he give advance information of Ate fact of his receiving treatment from the particular Doctor." 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 4. The petitioner joined as RPF Constable at NF Railway at Maligaon, Guwahati in the month of November, 1979. He was sent for training and after completion of training he was posted at Alipurduar Junction. On 8.11.89 the petitioner was detailed for duty from 22 hours to 6 (six) hours on 9.11.89 but he left the duty and proceeded to his village without giving any information on the ground of illness of his wife. He was sent for training and after completion of training he was posted at Alipurduar Junction. On 8.11.89 the petitioner was detailed for duty from 22 hours to 6 (six) hours on 9.11.89 but he left the duty and proceeded to his village without giving any information on the ground of illness of his wife. On 27.12.89 after recovery of illness he approached the Inspector, RPF Alipurduar Junction with an application for leave and for permission^ resume duty by filing Medical Certificate of the illness of his wife. The Inspector asked him to wait till permission from the Divisional Security Commissioner, respondent No.3. On 12.1.90 as he did not get permission to join his duty he was attacked with severe pain in his legs and he left Guwahati informing the Inspector as there was nobody to look after and as he was running with shortage of money. From 13.1.90 to 15.2.91 the petitioner was suffering from-various diseases one after another and could not go to resume his duty nor could he inform the authority. Thereafter, the petitioner received the letter about departmental proceedings and it is stated that the authority was informed about the illness of the petitioner. At last he received letter directing him to attend the enquiry positively on 15.2.91. The petitioner accordingly reported to the respondent No.3 on that afternoon. On 15.2.91 the respondent No.3 furnished the show-cause notice of a departmental proceeding dated 15.1.90 alongwith the statements of allegations and he was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer, respondent No.5 next day i.e. on 16.2.91. On 16.2.91 the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer praying for time to file written statement and that was allowed. The enquiry was conducted in English. The petitioner was not able to follow the English properly. The witnesses were examined on behalf of the department. The statement of the petitioner were recorded but nothing was read over to the petitioner. That is in paragraph 8 of the writ application. The respondent No.3 on the basis of the Enquiry Report held the petitioner guilty and accordingly the disciplinary authority vide Annexure B quoted above passed the order removing the petitioner from service. 5. An appeal was filed and that was rejected vide Annexure D to the writ application. The relevant portion of which has been quoted above. 6. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed but the record has been produced before me. 5. An appeal was filed and that was rejected vide Annexure D to the writ application. The relevant portion of which has been quoted above. 6. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed but the record has been produced before me. 7. I have heard Shri B. Kalita, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri B.K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Railway. The following points have been urged on behalf of the petitioner: (i) Respondent No.4 (Assistant Security Commissioner), is an officer below the rank of the Appointing Authority and as such the departmental proceeding drawn up by him is illegal. (ii) Petitioner not having been given opportunity to file written statement in defence, the enquiry held is illegal and violative of natural justice. (iii) The enquiry has been held in an arbitrary manner and in violation of the principle of natural justice, Article 311 of the Constitution and the provisions of the RPF Rules and as such the impugned order of removal from service is illegal. 8. In addition to it another point was taken that the petitioner was not provided with the help of defence assistance nor he was given the second show cause and as such this enquiry is also illegal, and in support of this pleadings, the contentions of the petitioner are as follows : (i) The petitioner wanted to defend his case by filing written statement in defence and verbally prayed for that before the respondent Nos.3 and 5, but he could not file the same as he was not allowed to do so. The Enquiry Officer (respondent No.5) had arbitrarily held enquiry on 16.2.91, recorded the statement of one witness on behalf .of the department and statement of the petitioner and closed the enquiry. The petitioner who read only upto High School standard in Assamese medium could not properly follow the language of the Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry in English and the enquiry officer recorded the proceeding in his own way and nothing was read over or explained to the petitioner. (ii)-That thereafter the Enquiry Officer had submitted the report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge and the respondent No.3 on the basis of the said Enquiry Report had passed an order on 19.3.91 removing the petitioner from service with immediate effect without applying his mind properly to the matter. (ii)-That thereafter the Enquiry Officer had submitted the report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge and the respondent No.3 on the basis of the said Enquiry Report had passed an order on 19.3.91 removing the petitioner from service with immediate effect without applying his mind properly to the matter. : (iii) That the petitioner submits that in the show cause notice of the departmental proceedings, the petitioner not having been given any opportunity to submit his written statement in defence, the proceeding is void ab initio and also violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. (iv) That the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer, respondent No.5 having conducted the enquiry without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement in defence, the enquiry was held in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and the provision of the RPF Rules, 1987. (v) That the petitioner submits that the enquiry having been held and closed in an arbitrary manner on the very day of the first appearance of the petitioner without giving him reasonable opportunity of preparing his defence by inspecting the relevant records, filing written statement, properly cross-examining the departmental witnesses and producing witness by him, the respondent No.5 has violated the provisions of the RPF Rules, 1987 and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. 9. In exercise my power under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of judicial review, the review is of decision making process, the Court or Tribunal cannot reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings. Judicial Review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives a fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct the Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. The findings arrived at in the domestic enquiry must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to the disciplinary proceeding. The findings arrived at in the domestic enquiry must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to the disciplinary proceeding. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of the facts. The Court can interfere where the authority conducts the proceeding against the process in a .manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or where the procedural safeguard given to an officer are violated or where the findings reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. 10. It is in this background let us examine the decision making process in the instant case. 11. A bare perusal of the record will show that the petitioner was not given the opportunity to file his written statement. He appeared on 16.2.91 before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer straight way proceeded, with the enquiry. It is stated by the petitioner in his writ application that he verbally asked time to the authority to file written statement but that was not allowed. On behalf of the department only one witness is examined i.e. one Shri R. Chakraborty. It is also recorded that cross examination was declined. The petitioner is an ordinary Constable and it is stated in the writ application that he does not understand English. Further, the petitioner was not informed he was never told by the Enquiry Authority that he is entitled to the help of a defence assistant to conduct the enquiry and that no offer of defence assistant to conduct the enquiry on behalf of the petitioner was made. 12. As held by the Apex Court and as well as by the Division Bench of this Court that failure to provide the defence assistant to the delinquent employee is fatal. Further, the enquiry was conducted in curious manner. No doubt there was laches and negligence on the part of the petitioner but when the authority wanted to take away the source of livelihood of a person it is reasonable and proper that the authority should have given a chance to the petitioner to file his written statement but it is stated in the writ application that prayer was also rejected. Further, it is not understood as to how and under what circumstances the statements of the petitioner was recorded in the enquiry and the same was utilised in the enquiry. In a department enquiry, the petitioner is not bound to examine himself inasmuch as the burden is always on the authority to establish the charges brought as against the petitioner but it is found that the statements recorded was utilised as against the petitioner. 13. The next infirmity in the enquiry is that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner had no opportunity to make a representation. After Ramzan Khan, date of judgment 20.11.90 (Union of India vs. Ramzan Khan) AIR 1991SC 471, the law is settled that if the authority fails to furnish the Enquiry Report the punishment imposed on the petitioner on that ground alone will fall through. That law has been reiterated in the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court and on that ground also this enquiry must be deemed to be Bad in the eye of law. The purpose of supplying the enquiry report is that the delinquent officer may be in a position to file representation and he may give the reasons dissuading the disciplinary authority from coming to a decision to accept that report. 14. By failure to furnish the report to the delinquent, the delinquent is deprived of opportunity to make a representation regarding to die materials utilised in the report to find a person guilty. So, the decision making process in the enquiry is found to be violative of the principle of natural justice. 15. Shri Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents relied on AIR 1972 SC 32 (Channabasappa Basappa Hawaii vs. The State of Mysore) where in paragraph 5 the Supreme Court pointed out inter alia as follows : "It was contended on the basis of the ruling reported in RV Durham Barter Sessions: Ex parte Virgo (1952 (2) QBD 1) that on the facts admitted in the present case, a plea of guilty ought not to be entered upon the record and a plea of not guilty entered instead. Under the English law, a plea of guilty has to be unequivocal and the Court must ask the person and if the plea of guilty is qualified the Court must not enter a plea of guilty but one of not guilty. Under the English law, a plea of guilty has to be unequivocal and the Court must ask the person and if the plea of guilty is qualified the Court must not enter a plea of guilty but one of not guilty. The Police Constable here was not on his trial for a criminal offence. It was a departmental enquiry, on facts of which due notice was given to him. He admitted the facts. In fact his counsel argued before us that he admitted the facts but not his guilt. We do not see any distinction between admission of facts and admission of guilt. When he admitted the facts he was guilty. The facts speak for themselves. It was a clear case of indiscipline and nothing less. If a Police Officer remains absent without leave and also resorts to fact as a demonstration against the action of the superior officer the indiscipline is fully established. The learned Single Judge in the High Court was right when he laid down that the plea amounted to a plea of guilt on the facts on which the petitioner was charged and we are in full agreement with the observations of the learned Single Judge." 16. That was a case where a person admitted the facts and did not wish to cross examine any of the witnesses or adduce evidence on his behalf. But in this particular case the charge was denied and it is not known whether any facility was given to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and as a matter of fact as the petitioner comes from a lower rank and he was not in a position to cross examine the witnesses and as such the necessity of defence assistant but that was also not provided to him. So, this case does not help the respondents. 17. The next case relied on i& unreported judgment of this Court in Civil Rule No.1145 of 1987 (Shri Prafulla Chandra Deka vs. Union of India & others). There also the petitioner was a Constable of the Railway Protection Force of the NF Railways. The charges as against that persons was as follows: "While functioning as RK/MLQ during the period Sri Prafulla Chandra Deka had reported sick on and from 21.1.85 but did not report to the Doctor for his treatment and remained absent from that day without any information till date. The charges as against that persons was as follows: "While functioning as RK/MLQ during the period Sri Prafulla Chandra Deka had reported sick on and from 21.1.85 but did not report to the Doctor for his treatment and remained absent from that day without any information till date. While functioning as RK/MLG during the period Shri Prafulla Chandra Deka occupying Railway Quarter No.524 (A) of New Guwahati Colony without any authority and allotment." 18. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was dismissed from service and this Court in paragraph 5 found as follows: "The absence from duty by-a member of a discipline force is a serious one and it may have criminal consequences. I am, therefore, not at all inclined to interfere with the punishment of removal imposed on the writ petitioner. Nothing has been brought to my notice that there was any violation of principles of natural justice while conducting the disciplinary proceeding. I, therefore, do not propose to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the impugned order of removal." 19. In the instant case as I have found that the disciplinary proceeding was not conducted properly as required. So, this1 case is of no help to die respondents. 20. Another aspect of the matter must be borne in mind. Admittedly, the petitioner has put in service for more than 10 years and as the petitioner put in service for more than 10 years, under Rule 309 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950 he is entitled to the pension but if it is a case of dismissal or removal the discretion is with the concerned authority. In the said rule it is also provided that such pensionary benefit shall not exceed 2/3rd of the pensionary benefits which would have been admissible to an employee if he had retired on medical certificate. 21. Keeping in view the service rendered by the writ petitioner for more than 10 years and also the nature of the charges, it was also the duty of the authority to make appropriate order with regard to the amount of pension and pensionary benefit payable to the petitioner. Even that was not done by the authority in the instant case. 22. Even that was not done by the authority in the instant case. 22. Be that as it may, on perusal of the materials on record and after hearing the learned counsel of both the parties I hold as follows: (i) The order dated 29.3.91 Annexure Band the order dated 13.6.91 Annexure D to the writ application shall stand quashed being illegal and in violation of law. (ii) If the authority decides to initiate fresh departmental proceeding, the authority at the time of final order shall take into account the right of the petitioner to receive pension for having put up service for more that 10 years. (iii) The writ petitioner shall be entitled to 50% back wages in view of his conduct as revealed from the materials on record. 23. This disposes of the writ application.