JUDGMENT In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is the Deputy General Manager (Corporate) of the Cycle Corporation of India Limited, a Public Sector undertaking wholly owned by the Government of India has challenged order dated 9th October, 1995 whereby he has been placed under suspension. The petitioner has also challenged the constitutional legality and validity of the memorandum dated 30th October, 1995 whereby as many as four articles of charges were served upon the petitioner along with the statement of imputation of his conduct/misbehaviour in support of the said Articles of charges The petitioner has in fact challenged the very basis of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him by the respondent Cycle Corporation of India Ltd. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed in January 1982 in the Management of the respondent Corporation and in June 1983 was promoted as Assistant Sales Manager. In April 1985 the petitioner was further promoted as Regional Sales Manager and in May 1986 he was elevated to the rank of Deputy Chief Marketing Manager (East) and was posted at the Eastern Regional Sales Office of the respondent in Calcutta. Since April 1992 the petitioner has been in charge of the Calcutta Branch in the Eastern Regional Sales Office. The petitioner says that after 13th May, 1993 he has been redesignated as Deputy General Manager (Corporate). 2. It was In the month of September 1986 that one M/s. Baba Enterprises of Jagatpur, Cuttack (Orissa) applied for distributorship of the cycles manufactured by the respondent Corporation for Cuttack and Bhubaneswar region. The said M/s. Baba Enterprises, instead of going through the regular and usual method pf making an application before the Marketing and Sales Department of the respondent Corporation, directly approached respondent No.3 .i.e., the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent. Corporation. The petitioner’s contention is that Ultimately the matter came up to his consideration, as directed by the respondent No 3 and he in the absence of any specified code of conduct regarding the observance of formalities instructed Area Sales Officer in East Orissa to conduct a spot enquiry during his normal tour cycle. After the enquiries were completed requisite dealership questionaire form was given to the said M/s. Baba Enterprises which was duly filled in by them and submitted to the Corporation. After the enquiries were completed requisite dealership questionaire form was given to the said M/s. Baba Enterprises which was duly filled in by them and submitted to the Corporation. In the meantime the Area Sales Officer for East Orissa also submitted his report and since it was presumed that the matter regarding the award of dealership had come from the top of the management he submitted his report accordingly. The matter was discussed by him with the petitioner and with the Chief Marketing Manager. The petitioner discussed the matter also with the then Chairman and Managing Director as well as the Chief Marketing Manager. The case of the petitioner is that during this discussion both of them expressed their eagerness to offer dealership to the aforesaid M/s. Baba Enterprises since, as per the averments in the petition, one of the partners of this concern was the son of Shri Chintamoni Panigrahi, who was at that time a member of Parliament and in that capacity, Chairman, Public Estimates Committee of Parliament and who later on became a Minister of State for Horne Affairs in the Government of India, and subsequently the Governor of Nagaland. In this background the petitioner issued a letter on 6th February, 1987 whereby he duly accorded dealership in favour of the said M/s. Baba Enterprises and passed on demand draft for Rs. 500/- deposited by the said parties as and by way of security deposit. The petitioner's case is that the grant of dealership vide the communication dated 6th February, 1987 was ratified by his superior Officers comprehensively. Subsequently it appears that the aforesaid dealer committed some defaults in the payment of the amounts due by it to the respondent Corporation. 3. Affidavit-in-Opposition has been med on behalf of the respondents by one Shri Dhiresh Chandra Ghosh, who is the Secretary of the Cycle Corporation of India Ltd. The affidavit was affirmed on 16th July, 1996. 4. A careful perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents clearly suggests that the respondents have chosen not to deal with the background of the case regarding the facts alleged by the petitioner with respect to the grant of dealership to M/s. Baba Enterprises in 1987. 4. A careful perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents clearly suggests that the respondents have chosen not to deal with the background of the case regarding the facts alleged by the petitioner with respect to the grant of dealership to M/s. Baba Enterprises in 1987. Nothing has been said in the affidavit-in-opposition with regard to the background of the case as to why, under what circumstances and how was the dealership accorded to the aforesaid concern and as to whether the allegations and averments made by the petitioner in the writ petitions were all true and correct or not. It was expected of the respondents that in answer to the writ petition filed in this Court they should have dealt with the allegations and factual averments regarding the background aspects of the case with respect to the grant of dealership. On the other hand the respondents have confined their affidavit in-opposition to the legal parameters relating to the charge-sheet and the suspension and the allegations and averments relating thereto as made by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has been suspended by the respondents in exercise of their power vesting in them under Rule 20(a) of the Cycle Corporation of India Ltd. (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 (1985 Rules for short). The petitioner's suspension is based on the ground of disciplinary proceedings against him being contemplated. The memorandum dated 30th October, 1995 accompanied by the charge• sheet and the statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour has been issued by the respondents as per the procedure - prescribed in Rule 25 of 1985 Rules. It shall be advantageous to reproduce the exact wording of first two paragraphs of Rule 25 because this part of Rule 25 shall come up for consideration in the latter part of the judgment. These two paragraphs thus read :- 1. No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of Rule 23 shall be made except after an inquiry is held in accordance with this rule. 2. Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an employee; It may itself enquiry into, or appoint any public servant (hereinafter called the inquiring authority) to inquire into the truth thereof. 6. 2. Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an employee; It may itself enquiry into, or appoint any public servant (hereinafter called the inquiring authority) to inquire into the truth thereof. 6. The articles of charges accompanying the memorandum dated 30th October, 1995 read as under :- STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI SUSHIR ROY, DGM-CORPORATE. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I. That the said Shri Sushir Roy while functioning as Dy. Chief Marketing Manager on 6th February, 1987 unauthorisedly awarded dealership of the company's cycles to M/s. Baba Enterprises, Jagatpur, Cuttack, Orissa, without taking approval from the competent authority and/or observing the formalities in appointment of such dealers, thus failing to absolute devotion to duty and committing an act which is unbecoming of an employee of this organisation. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II. That during the aforefaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Shri Sushir Roy executed the dealership to M/s. Babs Enterprises in a highly irregular manner and entered into deals resulting in loss to the company amounting to Rs.1,53,722.63, thus committing an act which is unbecoming of an employee of this organisation. A RTICLE OF CHARGE-III. That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Shri Sushir Roy short-circuited the regular procedure in appointment of dealership and in the process duped the company causing financial loss and loss of image, thus failing to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-IV. That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid capacity the said Shri Sushir Roy has all along been covering up the shady deal resulting in financial loss and loss of public image to the company, thus committing an act which is unbecoming of an employee of CCIL. 7. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings has been attacked by the petitioner on a number of grounds. It is contended that the delay in initiating the proceedings has made the proceedings liable to be struck down inasmuch as the alleged acts attributed to the petitioner having allegedly occurred sometime in the year 1987, the service of the charge-sheet in late 1995, i.e. after a delay of almost 9 years, during which period almost all the relevant and material witnesses have either retired or have become difficult to procure. It is also contended that charges are very vague and uncertain of being properly understood. The petitioner also has assailed the charge-sheet on the ground that no misconduct actually attributable to the petitioner has been alleged. Lastly it was contended that the respondents have initiated the disciplinary proceedings against petitioner, not on their own but at the instance, and as dictated to them by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The essence of this contention is that the competent disciplinary authority did not apply its mind, nor did it consider any aspect of the matter whereby it could have decided whether to initiate or not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Actually, according to the petitioner the disciplinary authority has only acted on the dictates of the CBI, without at all itself considering the matter or applying its mind. Thus, because of the extraneous influence exerted upon it by the CBI, the disciplinary authority has played into its hands and without forming any opinion it has initiated the disciplinary proceedings. 8. The respondents have denied the allegations and have contended that there is no inordinate delay in the servicing of the charge-sheet or the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. They have also stated that the charges are not vague or stale. According to the respondents a reading of the charge sheet clearly points out the commissioning of the misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The extraneous influence of the CBI has also been denied and it has been contended by the respondents that the competent disciplinary authority applied its own mind to the entire matter and on proper application of mind and consideration of all relevant aspects of the case it itself decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 9. The petitioner also urged that the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents cannot be relied upon by them because it has been filed by a person who was not involved in the process of any decision making at the relevant time and in any case the verification of the affidavit being defective, the respondents should be deemed not to have filed any proper affidavit at all. 10. Let us consider the ground of challenge relating to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings at the behest of CBI. 10. Let us consider the ground of challenge relating to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings at the behest of CBI. The petitioner has levelled clear, unequivocal and categorical allegations that the proceedings are initiated against him at the behest of CBI. These allegations have been attempted to be denied by the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition tiled on their behalf by Shri Dhiresh Chandra Ghosh. As will be seen, the affidavit of Shri Dhiresh Chandra Ghosh was affirmed in July 1996 and in Para 1 of the affidavit he claims to be the Secretary of the respondent corporation. He however does not say as to when did he become the Secretary of the respondent Corporation and as to whether at the relevant time he had any occasion to deal with the case of/the petitioner or not. The best person to have filed the affidavit in this case was the Chairman-cum• Managing Director of the respondent Corporation at the relevant time. If the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director was not available for affirming the affidavit. on any account and for any reason, onus lay upon the respondents to find an alternative person who had the occasion to deal with the case of the petitioner and who had some role to play in the formulation of the opinion as to whether the petitioner should be charge-sheeted or not. The affidavit of Shri Dhiresh Chandra Ghosh is silent as to his personal knowledge and as how did he come to acquire the knowledge about the facts with regard to this question. 11. What therefore emerges is that the respondents had an opportunity of filing an affidavit of an appropriate person to rebut the allegations levelled by the petitioner with regard to the extraneous influence exerted by the. CBI but, without availing that opportunity, the respondents did not file the affidavit of appropriate person. The failure on the part of the respondents to re but, specifically and concisely, as also unequivocally and categorically, the allegations of the petitioner regarding undue influence exerted by the CBI is a circumstance which goes against the respondents. It is a settled principle of law that while disposing of a writ application, the pleadings have to be gone into and if an allegation in the petition has been levelled and it is not properly rebutted in the affidavit-in-opposition, its advantage Is available to the petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that while disposing of a writ application, the pleadings have to be gone into and if an allegation in the petition has been levelled and it is not properly rebutted in the affidavit-in-opposition, its advantage Is available to the petitioner. Apart from the fact that the appropriate person has not filed the affidavit, even in the affidavit of Shri Dhiresh Chandra Ghosh I find that the rebuttal of the allegations is not only vague, but half-hearted. In any event the allegations have not been properly rebutted by the respondents. 12. Apart from the omission and the failure of the part of the respondents in filing a proper affidavit, there is enough documentary evidence to clearly suggest and point out that CBI did exert influence over the competent authority for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. I very carefully went through the original record produced before me by the "learned Advocate for the respondents and found that enough documents exist to point out that such an influence has been exerted by the CBI. Communication dated 22.12.92 from Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI, Calcutta region. addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent Corporation is one of such document. It reads thus:- To Dated : 22.12.92 The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Cycle Corporation of India Ltd., 1, Middleton Street. Calcutta-71. Sub : CBI Case No. PE. 9/92-Cal. against Shri S. Roy, Dy. Chief Marketing Manager. Sir, I forward herewith two sets of the report of Supdt. of Police, Anti-corruption Branch, Calcutta which given the facts of the above case, the allegations and the result of the investigation. 2. The report will show that there is sufficient material for initiating action as under :- (i) Regular Departmental Action for Major Penalty against Sri S. Roy, Dy Chief Marketing Manager. (ii) Suitable Action as deemed fit against Miss. Ballari Sarkar, Personnel Officer. 3. Statement of article of charge/imputation of misconduct, list of witnesses and documents, Statement of suspect Officer are sent herewith along with the SP's Report for initiating Regular Departmental Action for Major Penalty. 4. The SP's Report sent herewith may please be treated as a confidential document and no reference to it may be made either in the statement of article of charge/imputation of misconduct Issued to the delinquent Officer/or in any subsequent correspondence with him. 5. I nominate Sri S. Kar, Inspr. 4. The SP's Report sent herewith may please be treated as a confidential document and no reference to it may be made either in the statement of article of charge/imputation of misconduct Issued to the delinquent Officer/or in any subsequent correspondence with him. 5. I nominate Sri S. Kar, Inspr. CBI, ACB, Calcutta to act as Presenting Officer in the Departmental Enquiry and accordingly an order may be issued by the competent authority appointing Sri Kar as Presenting Officer with an intimation to this office. 6. The result of Departmental Action may kindly be communicated to us in due course. Yours faithfully, Sd/ (D. Bagchi) Enclo: As above. Dy. Inspr. Genl. of Police CBI : Calcutta Region. 13 The concluding part of the report of the SP, referred to in the aforesaid communication reads as under :- Final recommendations : - In view of the facts and circumstances discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, it is recommended that-R.D.A. for Major Penalty may be initiated against Shri S. Roy (S-1). No action is possible against the private firm (S-2) since it is non-existing. 14. This communication was also accompanied by a draft charge-sheet. Not only that, entirely on its own, the DIG of Police, CBI even nominated Sri S Kar, Inspector, CBI to act as Presenting Officer in the proposed departmental enquiry against the petitioner. This apart, vide another communication dated 21.12.93, the CBI sought the progress of the case and impressed upon the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to ensure that immediate action is taken for serving the charge-sheet against the petitioner. The letter dated 21.12.93 reads as under :– To The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Cycle Corporation of India Ltd., 1, Middleton Street, Calcutta-71. Sub: CBI case No. PE. 9/92-Cal. against Sri S. Roy, Deputy Chief Marketing Manager. Ref: This office letter No. 5533/2/9/92 Cal., dated 22.12.92. Sir, This is to inform you that the matter is pending at your end for initiation of Regular Departmental Action for Major Penalty against Shri S. Roy, Deputy Chief Marketing Manager. It is, therefore, requested that immediate action may kindly be taken for serving charge-sheets against the suspect Officer & for appointment of E.O. & Presenting Officer. Kindly intimate after taking action for your end. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Superintendent of Police, CBI: ACB : Calcutta. 15. It is, therefore, requested that immediate action may kindly be taken for serving charge-sheets against the suspect Officer & for appointment of E.O. & Presenting Officer. Kindly intimate after taking action for your end. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Superintendent of Police, CBI: ACB : Calcutta. 15. Thereafter the CBI appears to have been following the progress of the case at regular intervals, time and again impressing upon the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to ensure the initiation of the proceedings, serving of charge-sheet etc. etc. 16. I am not oblivious to the fact that despite the CBI having taken the initiative to initiate and start the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the competent authority was not precluded from considering the matter itself, and by its own application of mind in forming an opinion as to whether action was called for against the petitioner in the sense that there were grounds for enquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour against him. At this stage it will be worth repeating and reiterating to point out that the affidavit of the appropriate person on behalf of the respondent would have been of great help if It would have been pleaded by the respondents through the said affidavit that the respondents did not act upon the Influence exerted by the CBI but applied their own mind in forming the opinion against the petitioner. I repeatedly invited the learned Advocate for the respondents to show to me even one document, a note, any piece of paper whereby it could be revealed that the competent authority had recorded its observations or endorsement that it had considered the matter itself and had formed its own opinion that the imputations of misconduct etc. against the petitioner warranted a disciplinary enquiry. Unfortunately however nothing of the kind was produced before 'me. In the record which was produced I failed to notice even a single document which could suggest that the competent authority had recorded any application of mind or the formation of any opinion. In the absence of the affidavit and the documents the conclusion appears to be unescapable that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated at the instance of the CBI, without any application of mind by the competent authority and in the total absence at any formation of opinion by him in this subject. In the absence of the affidavit and the documents the conclusion appears to be unescapable that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated at the instance of the CBI, without any application of mind by the competent authority and in the total absence at any formation of opinion by him in this subject. The influence which thus one is compelled to draw is that the competent authority acted mechanically, dictated as it appears to have been, by the CBI and initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, without an) application of mind on }t8 own. 17. In the matter of his service conditions, including initiation of disciplinary proceedings the petitioner is governed by, 1985 Rules. If therefore a Rule, which is mandatory in character, has not been properly followed or not followed at all, the petitioner can always raise a legitimate grievance with regard to the same. It is always open to the petitioner to complain that in his case, a particular Rule being mandatory was not followed which resulted in miscarriage of Justice. Viewed thus it is seen that Rule 25 of the 1985 Rules is one of such Rules, relevant extract whereof has been reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment, This Rule, clearly enjoins upon the competent disciplinary authority to form its opinion with regard to the existance of any grounds for enquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an employee of the Corporation. in other words in its application to the petitioner, Rule 25 clearly suggests that no disciplinary enquiry or disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner could have been initiated if the initiated if the competent disciplinary authority itself had not formed such an opinion. The formation of opinion is personal to the disciplinary authority. In the absence of the formation of such an opinion, much less a proper formation of opinion upon due application of mind, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings can be said to be de hors Rule 25 of 1985 Rules. Any enquiry therefore started in violation of rule 25 is patently vitiated in the eyes of law and can easily be termed as void ab intitio. 18. Any enquiry therefore started in violation of rule 25 is patently vitiated in the eyes of law and can easily be termed as void ab intitio. 18. In view of the above discussion therefore I have no hesitation in holding that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was patently illegal, being in violation of Rule 25 of 1985 Rules and thus deserves to be quashed and set aside. Since the disciplinary proceedings are being quashed and set aside only on the ground of extraneous influence having been exerted upon the competent disciplinary authority by the CBI, thus violating Rule 25 of 1985 Rules, the other grounds of attack urged by the petitioner with regard to disciplinary proceedings need not be taken into consideration. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, The impugned disciplinary proceedings and the impugned charge-sheet against the petitioner are quashed and set aside. Impugned suspension order, which was based on the contemplation of the impugned disciplinary proceedings is also quashed and set aside, All the consequences will follow. No order as to costs.