AJAY NATH RAY, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and at the first stage was punished by dismissal. The departmental appeal which was preferred was partially successful. The writ-petitioner was reinstated in service but his pay was put at the lowest level of the pay for a draftsman. The charge against the writ-petitioner was that on December 4, 1993 he had physically assaulted and seriously injured one Hore, another draftsman of superior rank. A preliminary enquiry was held by one Moitra on December 4, 1993. Several witnesses were examined at that preliminary stage. The show cause prepared and served in January, 1994; that was duly answered by the writ-petitioner. The charge was denied. Thereafter the enquiry itself was held by one M. N. Ghosh. At the enquiry Hore gave evidence, Moitra gave evidence and several others who had given evidence at the preliminary stage again appeared before the enquiring officer and gave their evidence again. The enquiry report was duly prepared. The enquiry report was served along with the order of dismissal. This report was in the possession of the writ-petitioner when the departmental appeal was preferred. ( 2 ) ALTHOUGH several points have been urged by the writ-petitioner in support of the writ petition, only one appears to be worthy of consideration. It is quite clear from the records that the enquiry was proceeded with, generally speaking, fairly and in accordance with the Rules. Copies of documents were given to the writ-petitioner and the list of exhibits produced on behalf of the respondents during hearing shows that even preliminary depositions were exhibited at the enquiry stage. There is not much, if any, correspondence on record showing any complaints by the writ-petitioner, made contemporaneously that he was not given the copy of this deposition or that document and therefore, he could not conduct his defence adequately. ( 3 ) THE appeal was also duly heard and there was no unfairness in that regard either. The only point which merits consideration is this that the enquiry officer M. N. Ghosh in his detailed report has again and again referred to several preliminary depositions of several witnesses who gave evidence at the preliminary stage. ( 3 ) THE appeal was also duly heard and there was no unfairness in that regard either. The only point which merits consideration is this that the enquiry officer M. N. Ghosh in his detailed report has again and again referred to several preliminary depositions of several witnesses who gave evidence at the preliminary stage. It is apparent from the enquiry report that the case against the writ-petitioner was stronger at the enquiry stage and there were many retractions subsequently made by the witnesses when they came before the enquiry officer. ( 4 ) THE alleged incident took place around 11 o'clock in the morning. The only evidence of injury is to one elbow of Hore. Which elbow it was is a little doubtful, because the medical report mentions the right elbow and the FIR the left. Between the incident and the receipt of medical aid by Hore there elapsed some four hours. He was carried on a bicycle to the hospital by another employee Islam. It is stated that when the FIR was lodged the police authorities referred the parties to the possibility of a departmental enquiry. ( 5 ) HOW and in what manner evidence differed at the final stage from the preliminary stage it is important to look into. One Basak said at the preliminary stage that he had heard altercations between Sahoo and Hore but this he withdrew. Islam had said that he had seen Hore bleeding but this was withdrawn by him. One Pramanick also retracted several statements. There was no eye witness to the incident except Hore and Sahoo. The fixed factors were that Hore insisted on the wrong doings of Sahoo and Sahoo insisted on his complete innocence. The enquiry officer has placed importance on the preliminary depositions. He has remarked that retractions from the preliminary depositions were perhaps made because of later sympathy felt by co-workers. He has remarked that no retraction of the preliminary depositions were made in writing by the persons who gave evidence, although they had a long time to do so if they so wished. It is undoubtedly the case that the enquiry officer has placed a lot of reliance on the preliminary depositions and the enquiry report is appreciably influenced by the presence of the preliminary depositions, by the consideration thereof and by the weightage placed on the preliminary depositions by the enquiring officer. It is undoubtedly the case that the enquiry officer has placed a lot of reliance on the preliminary depositions and the enquiry report is appreciably influenced by the presence of the preliminary depositions, by the consideration thereof and by the weightage placed on the preliminary depositions by the enquiring officer. It is now to be considered whether this is permissible in law. ( 6 ) THAT a preliminary enquiry can be held in departmental matters, and that the holding of it is even desirable is settled law. See in this regard a single Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court given in the case of V. R. Katarki, 1982 (3) SLR 76 and also our single Bench decision given in the case of A. R. S. Chowdhury, it being a decision of SINHA, J. reported in 1957-I-LLJ-494 (Cal ). It is held in the latter of the two cases that if reliance is sought to be placed on the statements made in the preliminary postulations, then those have to be repeated in the final enquiry. ( 7 ) TWO cases were placed by Smt. Sengupta appearing for the writ-petitioner, although at the stage of reply, regarding the legal status of statements, made during the investigation, at the time the actual criminal trial takes place. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court that these settlements would not be of much value, if of any value at all, to the prosecution. Their only use would lie in the possibility of use during cross-examination by the defence for contradicting the persons who might be saying something in favour of the accused during investigation and might be saying something contrary to it and against the accused during trial. The cases cited were those Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Tahsildar Singh v. State of U. P. respectively and the latter being a decision by a Bench of strength six. ( 8 ) IN the instant case the preliminary depositions were taken without the presence of the writ-petitioner. The preliminary enquiry going ex pane is nothing new but is quite the normal procedure. There was no cross-examination permitted at the preliminary stage, and none need be permitted. ( 8 ) IN the instant case the preliminary depositions were taken without the presence of the writ-petitioner. The preliminary enquiry going ex pane is nothing new but is quite the normal procedure. There was no cross-examination permitted at the preliminary stage, and none need be permitted. This enquiry was held for the purpose of deciding whether a show cause or charge-sheet would at all be issued or not and it was not held for the purpose of deciding upon the guilt or otherwise of the writ-petitioner. ( 9 ) BUT these preliminary depositions played an important part in the arrival of the final decision by the inquiring officer. In my opinion the preliminary depositions, as a matter of law, had to be kept completely out of consideration by the enquiring officer in so far as the aspect of establishment of the charge against Sahoo was concerned. These preliminary depositions are taken without following the dictates of natural justice. Giving these depositions importance and weightage at the stage of enquiry would thus vitiate the enquiry itself. The purpose of the preliminary depositions was in this case completely lost sight of and those were used not merely for the purpose of deciding whether a show cause would be issued or not but for the purpose of deciding whether the writ-petitioner would be departmentally punished or not. ( 10 ) I entirely agree with Sri Bandopadhyay who appeared for the respondents that it is not for the writ Court to appreciate evidence. I also agree with Sri Bandopadhyay that the not giving of the enquiry report at some stage earlier than the imposition of punishment, must be complained of in the writ petition and the non-giving must be shown to have caused prejudice to the writ-petitioner, in regard to these points, I do not find any merit in the writ-petitioner's case, I agree with Sri Bandopadhyay that there was some evidence before the enquiring officer on the basis of which punishment could have been imposed. ( 11 ) BUT that is not the important point here. If there is a mixture of relevant material on the basis of which punishment could be imposed along with irrelevant material on the basis of which the enquiring officer should not have decided against the writ-petitioner then and in that event, the mixture itself vitiates the proceeding. ( 11 ) BUT that is not the important point here. If there is a mixture of relevant material on the basis of which punishment could be imposed along with irrelevant material on the basis of which the enquiring officer should not have decided against the writ-petitioner then and in that event, the mixture itself vitiates the proceeding. It is not enough that there be relevant and adequate material, but it is also necessary that there be not a sufficient amount or irrelevant and impermissible material in the matter of formation of the enquiring officer's mind and opinion. Smt. Sengupta correctly relied on the case reported in 1983 (1) C. L. J. 9 a Division Bench decision of our Court. It has been there held that in deciding upon perversity, which is a question of law, the Court does not appreciate evidence but yet looks at it to decide whether any reasonable mind could have formed the opinion, the formation of which is challenged. ( 12 ) SIMILARLY, in deciding whether there is a mixture of irrelevant material with the relevant, the Court does not appreciate the different evidence, the Court does not appreciate or attach its own weightage to the depositions before the enquiry officer and the preliminary deposition, but the Court looks at these materials which have been considered by the departmental authority. If in looking at these the Court sees that the mixture of evidence is a mixture of the good with the bad then it is left with no alternative to striking down the decision which has been made. ( 13 ) THAT the Court is entitled to strike down a decision where irrelevant material has been taken into consideration and has influenced the decision, is now, beyond dispute. In any event a reference might be made to the case of Biswanath Mukherjee, where a quotation has been given, from an earlier decision of the Hon'ble Justice SRI AMARENDRA NATH SEN, the quotation would be found at page 313 and the case is reported in 1974 C. L. J. 151. Amongst the eight items mentioned the mixture of relevant material with the irrelevant is also indicated. ( 14 ) THIS rule is now so well settled that even from amongst the cases cited by Sri Bandopadhyay one authority might be mentioned. This is the case of Sitaram Sagar a decision by a Bench of strength five. Amongst the eight items mentioned the mixture of relevant material with the irrelevant is also indicated. ( 14 ) THIS rule is now so well settled that even from amongst the cases cited by Sri Bandopadhyay one authority might be mentioned. This is the case of Sitaram Sagar a decision by a Bench of strength five. Paragrah 49 which was cited by Sri Bandopadhyay states to the effect that a decision is good and not liable to be struck down if relevant material is considered, irrelevant material is not considered and, the decision is not utterly unreasonable. I am not of the opinion that the enquiring officer's decision in this case was perverse. He has addressed his mind as best as he could to the issues and he has not reached a decision which is so absurd that it is to be branded as utterly unreasonable, which could not have been reached by any rational enquiring mind. It is not on the ground of perversity that I strike down the decision but on the lesser ground of consideration of irrelevant material in the shape of the preliminary depositions for the purpose of establishing the department's case and charge. ( 15 ) THE enquiry report and the first decision have merged into the appellate decision which is also vitiated, not because of any inherent defect of its own but because of the factors which vitiate the decision appealed from. Even if there is an appellate decision, during the pendency of the writ, yet if the writ were to succeed, it shall so succeed notwithstanding the appellate decision and the appellate decision will also fall along with the struck down order See 1991 (1) S. L. R. 79 (A. P. ). The entire set of adverse orders against the writ-petitioner therefore fails. ( 16 ) IT should be mentioned that the question of occupation of quarters by the writ petitioner was not separately pressed and, therefore, no relief is granted in that regard. There shall thus be Rule absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (c) of the writ petition. From now onwards salary be paid to the writ-petitioner and other benefits be extended to him as if the disciplinary proceedings against him had failed completely. The arrear salary shall be paid in one lump sum to the writ-petitioner within a period of six weeks from date hereof. From now onwards salary be paid to the writ-petitioner and other benefits be extended to him as if the disciplinary proceedings against him had failed completely. The arrear salary shall be paid in one lump sum to the writ-petitioner within a period of six weeks from date hereof. ( 17 ) PARTIES will act thereon and thereafter on the perfected Rule. ( 18 ) RULE made absolute.