K. Ramamoorthy, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 11. 2. 1985. The facts culminating in filing the writ petition can be stated very briefly in the following terms. The petitioner had studied B. Com. (Hons.) On 28. 1. 1963 he was appointed as Supdt. (Accounts) by the first respondent M/s. National Building Construction Company Ltd. In April, 1964 he was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer. In November, 1965, he was promoted as Cost Accounts Officer. In December, 1967, he was promoted as Senior Accounts Officer. In or about October, 1969 he was appointed as Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of the Corporation. That is the second in heirarchy of the. first respondent after Chairman-cum-MD in the Organisation. On 28. 2. 1983 the petitioner sent a letter seeking voluntary retirement and also give three months notice. The second respondent Mr. S. C. Kapur who was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director at that time by a letter dated 1. 3. 1983 wrote to the petitioner that there was no scheme of voluntary retirement in the Corporation but agreed to relieve the petitioner of his duty on the petitioner s paying the balance of notice period. The second respondent wrote in that letter " the proceedings for major penalty were contemplated against you at the time of relief". The petitioner filed C. W. No. 450/83. ( 2 ) ON 5. 4. 1983 this Court passed the following order in the writ petition whereby the petitioner and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director were asked to withdraw their respective letters. The petitioner returned for duty after the order passed by this Court. 5. 4. 83: Present: Mr. Ambrish Kumar for the petitioner. Dr. Anand Prakash for the respondents. Rule D. B. The petitioner came to this Court with the allegation that he had asked for voluntary retirementas per his letter dated 28th February, 1983. The petitioner claimed that as he had completed 20 years of service he may be permitted to 123 seek voluntary retirement. The respondent, however, informed him by its letter of 1st March, 1983 that there was no scheme for voluntary retirement but as from his letter it was clear that he wanted to be relieved of his duties, the Corporation was relieving him of his duties with effect from 1st March, 1983 and paying him the balance for the notice period. The respondent, however, informed him by its letter of 1st March, 1983 that there was no scheme for voluntary retirement but as from his letter it was clear that he wanted to be relieved of his duties, the Corporation was relieving him of his duties with effect from 1st March, 1983 and paying him the balance for the notice period. The petitioner apparently was dissatisfied and by his letter dated 1st March, 1983 communicated that he had asked for voluntary retirement and that he was returning the cheque for the notice period. Show cause was issued and reply has been filed. Dr. Anand Prakash, the learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation stated and that is his stand in the reply also, that there were some disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the petitioner. And there is no volauntary retirement scheme at present in the Corporation, therefore the question of any benefit of voluntary retirement scheme could not have been contemplated by the petitioner, more so because he is a financial adviser and he would in the normal course have to know all the schemes. Dr. Anand Prakash says that the petitioner has already been relieved of his services but if the petitioner is taking the stand that he does not want to leave the services and wants to withdraw the letter dated 28th February, 1983 the same can be permitted to be done if the petitioner should put it in a formal letter asking for the withdrawal of the letter dated 28th Feburary, 1983. Of course. Counsel for the petitioner stated that he is withdrawing this letter. A formal letter, however, should be put in by the petitioner withdrawing the letter dated 28th Feburary, 1983. Dr. Anand Prakash says that after the letter is withdrawn the letter issued on 1st March, 1983 relieving the petitioner from service will be withdrawn and cancelled. "the result of course will be that the petitioner will be back in service. Dr. Anand Prakash makes it clear that as mentioned in the letter dated 1st March, 1983 there were some major penalty proceedings contemplated against the petitioner and the Corporation should not be deemed to have given up its right to take those steps or any other appropriate measures. Dr. Anand Prakash makes it clear that as mentioned in the letter dated 1st March, 1983 there were some major penalty proceedings contemplated against the petitioner and the Corporation should not be deemed to have given up its right to take those steps or any other appropriate measures. We clarify that our decision in no way restrains or prevents the Corporation from taking any appropriate steps against the petitioner that are available to it under the law. Now when thepetitioner is to be treated in service the relationship between the employer and employee continues and normal rights and obligations both of the employer and employee will govern the relationship. ( 3 ) ON 8. 4. 1983 the petitioner was suspended from service in view of contemplated disciplinary proceedings against him. On 6. 7. 1983 thecorporation asked the petitioner to submit the details of the assets and liabilities and the petitioner furnished the same. ( 4 ) ON 29. 3. 1984, almost a year after the order of suspension the Corporation issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner containing four charges and an Inquiry Officer was appointed after the petitioner gave reply to the charges. On 9. 7. 1984, Mrs. Jyotsoa Diesh (4th Respondent) was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. On 21. 7. 1984, the Inquiry Officer commenced the inquiry. ( 5 ) ON 6. 8. 1984, the petitioner requested for the production of certain documents by the Corporation. The Inquiry Officer passed the order permitting the inspection. On 5. 10. 1984 the petitioner informed the Inquiry Officer that the documents directed to be given for inspection had not been given. ( 6 ) ON 5th to 17th October, 1984, the inquiry was held. On 17. 10. 1984 the petitioner made a request to the Inquiry Officer to adjourn the inquiry till 22nd October, 1984 to enable examination of a witness Mr. P. N. Sadhu who were given a report after completing his tour and that held refused by the Inquiry Officer. ( 7 ) ON 24. 11. 1984 the Inquiry Officer submitted his report. By Memo dated 26. 12. 1984 the Corporation senta copy of the report to the petitioner. The petitioner was given time to file his explanation. On 8. 1. 1985, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 85/85 challenging the same. On 9. 1. 1985, the petitioner made a representation against the inquiry report. On 11. 2. By Memo dated 26. 12. 1984 the Corporation senta copy of the report to the petitioner. The petitioner was given time to file his explanation. On 8. 1. 1985, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 85/85 challenging the same. On 9. 1. 1985, the petitioner made a representation against the inquiry report. On 11. 2. 1985, the petitioner was served with an order of dismissal by the Corporation. On 15. 2. 1985 the writ petition was presented in this Court challenging the order of dismissal. On 21. 2. 1985, CW No. 85/85 filed on 8. 1. 1985 was withdrawn by the petitioner. On 3. 9. 1985, his Court issued Rule DB in the writ petition. ( 8 ) THE main grounds of challenge mentioned in the synopsis submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are : (1) Delay in holding the inquiry. (2) Relevant documents asked for by the petitioner were not given inspection and that resulted in great prejudice to the petitioner and that it would amount to; violation of principles of natural justice and which would vitiate the inquiry. (3) The findings of the Inquiry Officer on the charges are not based on any evidence and the report is vitiated by the perversive approach. (4) Mr. S. C. Kapur, the C. M. D. of the National Building Construction Corporation had initiated inquiry against the petitioner did not agree with him on a few aspect of admission, and therefore initiation of inquiry is vitiated. ( 9 ) BEFORE I deal with the charges the principle applicable to the matter has to be stated. The Court in a writ petition of this nature is not sitting in appeal over the matter. The department is not bound by the rules of evidence. The department should have necessary materials to prove the charges against the delinquent official and the material produced by the department should be clear and cogent and the department should hold the inquiry in accordance with the principles of fair play and justice. The findings given by the Inquiry Officer should be on the basis of evidence produced by the department. The department cannot act on mere conjectures and surmises for the purpose of coming to the conclusion whether the finding rendered by the Inquiry Officer are supported by evidence or not. The findings given by the Inquiry Officer should be on the basis of evidence produced by the department. The department cannot act on mere conjectures and surmises for the purpose of coming to the conclusion whether the finding rendered by the Inquiry Officer are supported by evidence or not. The department should give sufficient opportunity to the delinquent official and should produce all the materials in its custody so that the truth could be easily found out. ( 10 ) WITH the above principles in mind we now proceed to survey the charges and the documents produced by the NBCC and the oral evidence adduced before the Inquiry Officer. Before we embark on the inquiry, the general idea about the documents should be set out. ( 11 ) THE Presenting Officer on behalf of the NBCC exhibited documents marked as S-1 to S-15 before the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner marked Exhibits D-1 to D-13. Exhibit S-1 is a letter dated 7/8th of November, 1978 from B. P. Dave, Chief Project Manager to the Officer on Special Duty, NBCC mentioning about the requirements of the University for starting the work. Exhibit S-2 is a letter dated 16. 11. 1978 from Mr. B. P. Dave, Chief Project Manager to the Officer on Special Duty. Exhibit S-3 is a letter dated 5. 12. 1978 by Mr. K. G. Salvi, Officer on Special Duty to Shri B. P. Dave, Chief Project Manager. The total amount for plant and machinery for Baghdad University that could be spent was fixed at Rs. 2,71,500 ID. Exhibit S-4 is a file pertaining to the purchase of Impala Car. The car was purchased on 22. 3. 1979. Exhibit S-5 is a book according toPresenting Officer, which shows the history sheet of the Impala Car. Exhibit S-6, is a survey report about the car because the car was under repair. Exhibit S-7 is stated to be a copy of the registration book. Exhibit S-8 is a letter dated 27. 4. 1983 stated to be offered given by the Yusuf A. Alghanim OA Sons W. L. L. Exhibit S-9 is a letter dated 1. 6. 1983 letter from M/s. Khalid Al-Tayyar Establishment. Exhibit S-10 is stated to be a tour report of P. N. Sadhu from 21. 9. 1981 to 23. 9. 1981. Exhibit S-11 is stated to be the cash book of Baghdad University. 6. 1983 letter from M/s. Khalid Al-Tayyar Establishment. Exhibit S-10 is stated to be a tour report of P. N. Sadhu from 21. 9. 1981 to 23. 9. 1981. Exhibit S-11 is stated to be the cash book of Baghdad University. Exhibit S-12 also is stated to be cash book. Exhibit S-13, is a survey report of Car No. 5183 (Impala Cheverlot) by R. S. Joon, A. E. (Mech. ). Exhibit S-14 is again stated to be a survey report by Mr. Sat Prakash, Assistant Manager (Admn. ). Exhibit S-15 is stated to be a letter dated 30. 8. 1983 from M. L. Choudhary, DMM (BPT ). ( 12 ) EXHIBIT D-1 is a letter dated 15. 12. 1978. Exhibit D-2 is an accounts mannual of the Accounts Officer. Exhibit D-3 is a T. A Bill of the petitioner (Mr. R. K. Gupta ). Exhibit D-4, is stated to be survey report of Car No. 5183 (Impala Cheverlot) at Baghdad by Mr. S. S. Kapoor, Regional Manager (Eandm) Baghdad. Exhibit D-5 is telex message from NBCC to First Secretary (Commercial), Indian Embassy at Washington. Exhibit D-6 is dated 28. 6. 1983 is a telax message from Indian Embassy to Washington. Exhibit D-7 is a copy of the note dated 2. 3. 1979 wherein the Chairman-cum-Managing Director had approved the action of the Chief Project Manager. Exhibit D-8 is a letter from R. K. Gupta (petitioner) to the respondent. Exhibit D-9 is a printed pamphlet about the Arabian Consumer. Exhibit D-10, is a letter dated 27. 1. 1970. Exhibit D-11 is a letter dated 17. 12. 1978. Exhibit D-12 is a folder containing cash vouchers for Impala Car. Exhibit D-13 is a folder containing cash vouchers relating to purchase of Libya/iraq. ( 13 ) THE Corporation examined four witnesses. SW-1 Mr. S. S. Kapoor. SW-2, R. S. Joon, Assistant Engineer (Mech.) NBCC. SW-3 Mr. Sat Prakash, Assistant Manager (Personnel) NBCC, SW-4 Shri M. L. Choudhary, Deputy Meterials Manager, NBCC. ( 14 ) THE petitioner examined three witnesses. DW-1 Shri S. L. Gupta, Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer of the NBCC. DW-2, Shri N. K. Jindal, Chartered Accountant. DW-3 Shri R. K. Gupta, the petitioner himself. ( 15 ) WE shall now take up the analysis of the charges and the evidence available on record. ( 14 ) THE petitioner examined three witnesses. DW-1 Shri S. L. Gupta, Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer of the NBCC. DW-2, Shri N. K. Jindal, Chartered Accountant. DW-3 Shri R. K. Gupta, the petitioner himself. ( 15 ) WE shall now take up the analysis of the charges and the evidence available on record. arge No. 1: Charge No. 1 reads as under : Shri R. K. Gupta, FA and CAO in connivance with Shri B. P. Dave, the then Chief Project Manager, Iraq had recorded a false note dated 22. 3. 1979 to the effect that there was no sole selling agent for Impala Car at Kuwait whereas the scrutiny of the relevant records reveal that M/s. Yusuf A. Alghanim and Sons W. L. L were the sole selling agent for Impala Car during the above mentioned period. Shri Gupta had, therefore, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Corporation. He has thus contravened Rule 3 (1) of the NBCC Service (Conduct) Rules, 1969. ( 16 ) THE statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour runs as follows: Shri R. K. Gupta, FA and CAO (now under suspension) was sent as Head Office Observer for purchase of Plant and Machinery for University Works, Baghdad (Iraq) in March, 1979. During the above period, an Impala Car was purchased on 22. 3. 1979, at Kuwait from M/s. Khalid at Tayyar Establishment, Kuwait for an amount of KD 2750 by the then CPM, Iraq together with Shri R. K. Gupta, Head Office Observer for the University Works, Baghdad, Iraq. The Project Manager (University Works, Baghdad) and Finance Manager II during their visit to Kuwait in the third week of February, 1979 had obtained quotations from M/s. Abdul Nazzar and Co. , of Kuwait, who are the sole selling agent for Toyotta vehicles for purchase of Toyotta corolla car, Toyotta land cruisar. Mini bus. Land cruisar pick up and from M/s. Alghanim of Kuwait who were main dealers for American Car for purchase of Chevrolet Impala car. It has been revealed that Shri B. P. Dave, the then CPM and Shri R. K. Gupta FA and FAO did not contact M/s. Yusuf A. Alaghanim and Sons, who were and are the sole selling agent for the Chevrolet Impala car but recorded the following false note dated 22. 3. It has been revealed that Shri B. P. Dave, the then CPM and Shri R. K. Gupta FA and FAO did not contact M/s. Yusuf A. Alaghanim and Sons, who were and are the sole selling agent for the Chevrolet Impala car but recorded the following false note dated 22. 3. 1979 : "since for Impala, there is no sole selling agent, the undersigned alongwith Head Office Observer (i. e. , FA and CAO) contacted other dealers also. "it is seen from the records that for the purchase of Toyotta vehicles, both these officers made purchases from authorised sole selling agents, butin case of Chevrolet Impala car they did not contact the sole selling agent. Shri Gupta had, therefore, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Corporation. He had thus contravened Rule 3 (1) of the NBCC Service (Conduct) Rules, 1969. ( 17 ) THE Inquiry Officer dealt with the case of Disciplinary Authority in the following terms: Shri R. K. Gupta, charged officer was functioning as FA and CAO (under suspension) in National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. It was brought out that the charged officerin connivance with Shri B. P. Dave, the then Chief Project Manager, Iraq recorded a false note to the effect that there was no sole selling agent for Impala car in Kuwaitwhereas, M/s. Yusuf A. Alghamin and Sons W. L. L. was the sole selling agent for Impala car during the relevant period. ( 18 ) THE Inquiry Officer summarised the defence of the petitioner in the following terms: The charged officer stated on page 8 of his written brief that he was only a nontechnical observer from the head office, he was not expected to locate sole selling agents and that this function had already been performed by the local purchase committee. He argued that M/s. Alghanim were main dealers and that there was no rule of Government of India or NBCC making it obligatory to make purchases from the sole selling agents. He added that according to para 18 (pages 5) in chapter entitled stores on the NBCCs Manual (Ex. D-2) it was enjoined upon the purchase committee to negotiate with the lowest bidder and not the sole selling agent (page 9 of written brief ). He added that according to para 18 (pages 5) in chapter entitled stores on the NBCCs Manual (Ex. D-2) it was enjoined upon the purchase committee to negotiate with the lowest bidder and not the sole selling agent (page 9 of written brief ). According to the charged officer he v/as directed by the C. M. D. in Ex. D-7 to proceed to Kuwait as observer for arranging funds for the purchase. ( 19 ) FROM this the N. B. C. C. sought to prove that M/s. Yusufa. OA Alghanim and Sons W. L. L. was the sole selling agent for Impala car in March, 1979 and the petitioner who was to oversee the purchase failed to see that it was purchased from the sole selling agent. The car had been purchased for Rs. 80,000. 00 not from a sole selling agent. ( 20 ) IN support of the conclusion it can be stated that the Inquiry Officer relied upon the statement of Shri S. S. Kapoor (SW-1) and documents Exhibits S-8 and S-10. The Inquiry Officer had referred to the evidence of Shri N. K. Jindal (DW-2) but has not considered his evidence in its proper perspective. He has stated in his evidence that since October, 1981 till date he had been looking after the Electrical, Mechanical Sections of all the projects of NBCC in Iraq. Therefore, he would admit that he was not in Iraq in March, 1979. He would state "the LPC (Local Purchase Committee) consists of one member from Finance Wing, one member from Technical Wing and the Projects Director. There is a Head Office Observer to assist the LPC in finalising the purchase". He would further state "m/s. Alghamin Company of Kuwait were the sole selling agents for Cheverlot Impala car in Kuwait". Heexpress his view on Exhibit S-10 and he would state "ihave been shown Exhibit S-10. I agree that the main and sole selling agent of Cheverlot Car arc M/s. Alghanim in Kuwait as per the statement of Mr. P. N. Sadhu, Ex-Chief Engineer, NBCC". He would assert "i do not agree with the statement made by Mr. Dave and Mr. R. K. Gupta that there is no sole selling agents for Impala Car in Kuwait". He referred to the statement dated 22. 3. 1979 in Exhibit S-4 at page 27. P. N. Sadhu, Ex-Chief Engineer, NBCC". He would assert "i do not agree with the statement made by Mr. Dave and Mr. R. K. Gupta that there is no sole selling agents for Impala Car in Kuwait". He referred to the statement dated 22. 3. 1979 in Exhibit S-4 at page 27. He would further assert "there is a sole agent for Cheverlot Impala car in Kuwait as stated by me earlier and it has been there for several years". This is purely an inference. In the cross-examination he would state "in Kuwait M/s. Alghanim and Sons are the sole agent for Impala Car. Whereby we received the quotation from M/s. Alghanim and Sons in Kuwait. On their quotation they have written that they are the sole agent". He gives his opinion on mere conjuncture. It is believed that M/s. Alghanim and Sons were also the sole agent in 1979. In the re-examination lie would state "the price offered by M/s. Alghanim and Sons, main dealer for American car is mentioned at page 26 of Exhibit S-4". Here he would not state that the Company was the sole selling agent. The petitioner examined Mr. N. K. Jindal a DW-2 on this aspect of the case. Mr. N. K. Jindal was examined on 17. 10. 1994. He is a Chartered Accountant. He was working as Fina. ice Manager from December 1978 to October, 1981 in NBCC s Branch, Baghdad. Therefore, it is clear that in March, 1979 he was in Baghdad and he must have been personally aware of the transactions in question. There is a remark in the margin at page 26 of S-4. Mr. Jindal states that that margin note was made by Mr. Philips. Mr. Jindal DW-2 states "i visited M/s. Alghanim with Shri Philips. This remark was expressed by M/s. Alghanim in my presence. They never told us that they were sole selling agents for any American Car". He would further state "we had visited Khalid Al-Tayyar Establishment. They told us that they were also main dealers of American Cars. I think this establishment had as many as 300 new cars of different models and makes. " It may be noticed that the car was purchased for Rs. 80,000. 00 only from Khalid AI-Tayyar Establishment. In the cross-examination, no question was put to Mr. N. K. Jindal about this aspect. Therefore, the statement made by Mr. I think this establishment had as many as 300 new cars of different models and makes. " It may be noticed that the car was purchased for Rs. 80,000. 00 only from Khalid AI-Tayyar Establishment. In the cross-examination, no question was put to Mr. N. K. Jindal about this aspect. Therefore, the statement made by Mr. N. K. Jindal in his chief examination remained uncontroverted. Exhibit S-8, is a letter dated 27. 4. 1983 from Yusuf A. Alghanim and Sons W. L. L. to the NBCC. The letter would read as follows: SOLE AGENT FOR: GADILAC, PONTIACS, CHEVROLET, OLDSMOBILE and OPEL YUSUF A. ALGHANIM and SONS W. L. L. 27th April, 1983 Messrs National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. , 15-901-19 Karada Trkhita P. O. Box -1003 Baghdad. Dear Sirs, Attention: Project Director. We are pleased to submit hereunder our best cash export prices for the following vehicle for your kind consideration: 1. Chev. Impala KD3975. 00 1983 Model Type-12 Special Export KD 0300. 00 Net: KD. 3675. 00 DELIVERY PERIOD - ONE WEEK EX OUR GARAGE While thanking you in anticipation, hope that our prices will meet your approval and are looking forward to receive your firm order. Yours faithfully, sd/- naser Diab manager, (A. O) kuwait Dealership ( 21 ) NO one from the Company has been examined. No details about the Company were filed before Inquiry Officer by the NBCC. Exhibit SW-1 has not explained as to what was written by the NBCC to that Company and what was the necessity for NBCC to write to the Company in April, 1983 and whether NBCC had any transaction with that Company in 1983 upto the particular date and it is not shown as to when this letter was received by the NBCC. In the absence of the crucial facts the letter by itself is not proof of its contents. No doubt, the Inquiry Officer is notto go by the rules of evidence but there must be some materials to prove the facts. The NBCC had not chosen to produce the relevant basic facts to prove this letter. ( 22 ) EXHIBIT S-10, is a photo-copy of what is stated to be tour reports of Mr. P. N. Sadhu to Kuwait from 21. 9. 1981 to 23. 9. 1981. The report runs as under : Tour Report of P. N. Sadhu to Kuwait from 21. 9. 1981 to 23. 9. ( 22 ) EXHIBIT S-10, is a photo-copy of what is stated to be tour reports of Mr. P. N. Sadhu to Kuwait from 21. 9. 1981 to 23. 9. 1981. The report runs as under : Tour Report of P. N. Sadhu to Kuwait from 21. 9. 1981 to 23. 9. 1981. The tour was primarily undertaken for following: (A) To ascertain from dealers in Kuwait about purchase procedures generally adopted by prospective buyer of Chevrolet Cars. (b) To ascertain the exact position about the condition of DATSAN Car given for repairs and get it despatched to Baghdad. The above tour undertaken as per the verbal orders of CVO/chd during my visit to Delhi in September, 1981. Purchase of Chevrolet Car: IT was ascertained from Kuwait market that main agents for selling of Chevorlet cars is with M/s. AI Ghanim and Sons. I met the representative of M s. at Ghanim and Sons. It was also ascertained that Kuwaiti nationals or other Companies can also directly get cars imported from U. S. A. without going through the authorised agent of M/s. Alghanim and Sons. However, this practice of importing cars directly is usually done only of few individuals. It was also ascertained that there are Companies/individuals who sell these imported cars to prospective buyers. But these type of transactions are usually done by individuals and not Companies. The Companies normally purchase Cars from authorised dealers. It was also mentioned that M/s. Wadhda Trading Company from whom the Chevorlet Car has been purchased is dealing in spare parts (main business ). His shop did not indicate any activity of selling Cars. M/s. Wadhda Trading Company is a firm owned by a Kuwaiti but the firm is managed in partnership by an Indian by name Mr. Anand. In conclusion, it is not an uncommon feature in Kuwaiti market to purchase cars from unauthorised dealers who directly import Cars from Kuwait, though 99% of the purchasers are directly made from authorised agent. Sending of Datsun Car Datsun Car was sent for repairs to Kuwait in July, 1983. This car though repaired could not be brought back to Baghdad due to difficult procedure followed by Kuwaiti and Iraqi Custom Authorities. The party was contacted and vehicle got despached to Baghdad. This was done by getting a Jordanian driver to drive the vehicle from Kuwait to Baghdad. This car though repaired could not be brought back to Baghdad due to difficult procedure followed by Kuwaiti and Iraqi Custom Authorities. The party was contacted and vehicle got despached to Baghdad. This was done by getting a Jordanian driver to drive the vehicle from Kuwait to Baghdad. The papers concerning the vehicles, fixing up of Jordanian driver at Kuwait were completed. The vehicle was then despached to Baghdad. sd/- (P. N. Sadhu) ( 23 ) THERE is a note by the Chairman in the following terms : I had request Shri P. N. Sadhu to enquire into the matter on his way back from Iraq. His stay at Kuwait from 21. 9. 1981 to 23. 9. 1981 may kindly be approved. Detailed comment on Shri P. N. Sadhu s report with follows. ( 24 ) MR. P. N Sadhu was not examined by NBCC. The petitioner sought to examine him but he was not permitted by the Inquiry Officer. The contents of the report given by Mr. Sadhu in the absence of his evidence cannot at all be taken into account. The Inquiry Officer has proceeded on mere surmises. ( 25 ) MR. N. K. Jindal DW-2 had stated "during my stay at Baghdad till October, 1981 I never came across any controversy as to who was the supplier of the Impala car". There was no cross-examination on this point and it is never the case of NBCC that there was any complaint from any quarter about the purchase. No material has been produced by the NBCC to show that there was any complaint from anybody for the purchase of Impala car. The learned Counsel for the NBCC at the time of arguments submitted the question was raised on the floor of the Parliament and it was only thereafter the CMD initiated action. This is wholly without any basis on record. Mr. Jindal would further state "i visited Kuwait with Shri Philip in February, 1979 as a member of the Local Purchase Committee for various vehicles". Therefore, if any fact was to be elicited, NBCC ought to have done it through this witness. NBCC failed to do that. ( 26 ) MR. Jindal would further state that "impala Car was received by Shri Prasar and Shri Philips, the Project Manager (Civil Engineer) inspected it. Therefore, if any fact was to be elicited, NBCC ought to have done it through this witness. NBCC failed to do that. ( 26 ) MR. Jindal would further state that "impala Car was received by Shri Prasar and Shri Philips, the Project Manager (Civil Engineer) inspected it. Neither Shri Prasar nor Shri Philips was examined nor was the statement challenged in the cross-examination. Mr. N. K. Jindal would further state "i remember I and Philip had collected return quotations from sellerof cars in Kuwait during February, 1979. These quotations, etc. were in the custody of Project Manager". This was also not challenged in the cross-examination. Mr. S. S. Kapoor (SW-l) would admit in the cross-examination " when it has been pointed out that the LPC negotiates with one or two lowest offers it means that the lowest bidders are not for same make as the sole agents for one type of car is only one so the LPC compares the specifications and then recommends the most suitable choice. LPC can recommend an alternative equivalent and cheaper car if the LPC so desires". Here Mr. Dave was not examined. No action was taken against him. The LPC had approached a trader in the field with business in large scale as stated by Mr. N. K. Jindal (DW-2 ). One cannot infer that the LPC just for the purpose of acquiring Impala car for the University had decided to have transactions with the persons without any status in the trade with a view to making an unjust gain. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer must have been circumspect and all the materials placed on record and the cumulative effect must have been considered from the correct angle. ( 27 ) NOW let us go to the assessment of evidence by the Inquiry Officer. The note made by Mr. C. J. Philip in the margin of document Exhibit S-4 is noticed by the Inquiry Officer. The note at page 7 of S-4 is quoted in the following terms: "negotiations were carried out further on 19. 3. 1979, 20. 3. 1979 with M/s. Abdul Nasser and Co. who are sole selling agents of Toyota. The party refused to sell the vehicles even at the prices mentioned above since there is 3% price rise in last one month, with persuation with their Head Office by U/sec. 3. 1979, 20. 3. 1979 with M/s. Abdul Nasser and Co. who are sole selling agents of Toyota. The party refused to sell the vehicles even at the prices mentioned above since there is 3% price rise in last one month, with persuation with their Head Office by U/sec. and F. A. , the dealer agreed to sell the same price. Since for Impala, there is no sole selling agents, the u/sec. alongwith HO Observer viz. , FA and CAO contacted other dealers also and the lowest price was offered by Khalid A. R. Tayyar Est. for 1979 Impala as KD 2750 which was found to be lowest. 1978 Model was now not available with any dealer. Therefore, it was approved to purchase Toyota vehicles at prices mentioned hereabove and Impala 1979 model at KD 2750. The prices are Ex-Showroom and the dealer have therefore, been requested to send the vehicles on Trailer to Baghdad Custom Point. The cost of freight, insurance, exit permit charges, etc. , shall be tilled by the party. These charges approx. works out to KD 187 plus KD 86. Since to avail the best price quoted, the party insisted for cash payment and therefore, M/s. Abdul Nasser and Co. has been given advance payment by cheque of KD 15790. The price for Impala cars was decided this afternoon and therefore, a full payment of KD 2750. 00 was paid in cash and the Impala car was to be passed on to M/s. Toyota agent so that this car can also go on the same trailer". ( 28 ) THE petitioner had made the following remarks : "seeing the trend of the market and the monopolistic conditions prevailing, we have no option to go but to agree to the payment terms. This was perhaps the best bargain in the circumstances. "the Inquiry Officer would say : Negotiations were carried out on 19. 3. 1979 and 20. 3. 1979 by Shri Dave and Shri Gupta with various parties. Whereas, negotiations were carried out with M/s. Abdul Nasser and Co. stated to be the "main dealers" of Toyota cars in Shri Phillips note and "sole selling agent" in Shri Dave s note, it is seen that there were no negotiations with M/s. Alghanim and Sons stated to be the main dealer for American cars (page 26 Ex. S-4) by Shri Phillip. stated to be the "main dealers" of Toyota cars in Shri Phillips note and "sole selling agent" in Shri Dave s note, it is seen that there were no negotiations with M/s. Alghanim and Sons stated to be the main dealer for American cars (page 26 Ex. S-4) by Shri Phillip. It is interesting to note that the names of the parties with whom negotiations were made is not indicated, neither is there any mention of the rates quoted by the different parties. ( 29 ) THE Inquiry Officer obviously had not considered die evidence of DW-2 when he said that the quotations were with the Project Manager and those quotations had not been produced by the NBCC. The Inquiry Officer in para 3. 3. 4 has stated that "sw-1 categorically staged on page 2 that M/s. Alghanim Company of Kuwait were the sole selling agents for Cheverolet Impala cars in Kuwait and had been there for several years". This is a purely conjecture. In support of this the Inquiry Officer would proceed to say : Exhihit S-8 is a letter from Alghanim and Sons. On top of this letter it is clearly and prominently written that they are sole agents for Cardillac Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Opel i. e. , American cars. Exh. S-10 is a tour report of Shri P. N. Sadhu, Ex. Chief Engineer, NBCC who was deputed to Kuwait in September, 1981 to ascertain from dealers in Kuwait about purchase procedures generally adopted by prosective buyers of Chevrolet cars. The report clearly shows that M/s. at Ghanim and Sons were the main agents for selling Chevrolet cars. ( 30 ) IN para 3. 3. 6 the view of the Inquiry Officer is based on this statement. "it is thus clear from the evidence of SW-1, Ex. S-8, Ex. S-10 as well as the notes on pages 26 to 27 Ex. S-4 that there is hardly any difference between the terms sole selling agency and main selling agency as far as this case is concerned. As explaianed by SW-1, sole selling agencies are those agencies who are authorised to sell a particular type of car and they can appoint sub-agents for sale of these cars. So far as a purchaser is concerned there is hardly any difference if the agency is termed sole selling agency or main selling agency. As explaianed by SW-1, sole selling agencies are those agencies who are authorised to sell a particular type of car and they can appoint sub-agents for sale of these cars. So far as a purchaser is concerned there is hardly any difference if the agency is termed sole selling agency or main selling agency. Whatever benefits/advantages are available to a purchaser from a sole selling agency are got from the main agent as well. " ( 31 ) DEALING with the evidence of DW-2, the Inquiry Officer observed : "shri Jindal, F. M (D. W. 2) while admitting that the remark at page 26 (Ex. S- 4) regarding M/s. Alghanim being main selling agent was by Shri Phillip P. M. , stated that when he visited M/s. Yusuf A. Alghanim and Sons with the Project Manager, the former did not say that they were sole selling agents. This statement is not correct as Ex. S-8 clearly shows that M/s. Alghanim were sole selling agents. " ( 32 ) WHEN there is no cross-examination by the NBCC, the Inquiry Officer cannot say that the statement of DW-2 would not corret. When S-8 cannot at all be taken into account on basic and fundamental principle of law without going to the rules and evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872. ( 33 ) THE Inquiry Officer deals with the evidence of DW-3, the petitioner R. K. Dave, in the following terms: "further in his deposition at page 30-31, the charged officer as DW-3 stated that neither M/s. Alghanim and Sons nor M/s. Khalid at Tayyar Est. were the sole distributors of American cars in Kuwait but they were the main dealers of American cars. In this context, it is seen from the letter dated 1. 6. 1983 from M/s. Khalid at Tayyar Est. Kuwait that they were not sole agents for all cars but were private auto importing establishments in Kuwait since 1973. The charged officer s statement regarding the status of M/s. Khalid A1 Tarrar Est. is thus proved false on the basis of the statement of the firm themselves. "( 34 ) SHE refers to the letter dated 1. 6. 83 which is marked Exhibit S-9. The letter reads as under: KHALID AL-TAYYAR ESTABLISHMENT EXHIBITIONS: KHALID BIN WALID ST. SHARQ KUWAIT Date June 1, 1983 National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. Dear Sir, With reference to your telex and inquiry by Mr. "( 34 ) SHE refers to the letter dated 1. 6. 83 which is marked Exhibit S-9. The letter reads as under: KHALID AL-TAYYAR ESTABLISHMENT EXHIBITIONS: KHALID BIN WALID ST. SHARQ KUWAIT Date June 1, 1983 National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. Dear Sir, With reference to your telex and inquiry by Mr. O. P. Goel of your Company Project Director it is our pleasure to offer you our lost price on the following Cars. We are not sole agent for all cars. We are Private Auto Importing Est. in Kuwait Since 1973. Chevorlet Impala 1983 KD3600. 00 (Delivery 4 to 6 weeks after your order, Chevorlet Car price 183 KD 4000. 00 (Delivery same time) Buick Parkavenue 1983 KD 5100. 00 (same time) 5 in stock now. Olds Mobile 98 Brg. 1983 5100. 00 (same time) 4 in stock now. As we learnt from Mr. Coel you buy Toyota cars from Al. Sayer even so we are not a dealer for this car so we can offer you good prices than they do : Please telex back what makes you need from Toyota and we will offer you our prices. Toyota cars now we have in stock : Corona DX 1. 8. If you need any other Toyota cars we can get your within 2-3 weeks time. For your information we can offer you also any type of Honda Cars. Hope to hear from you soon. sd/- Khalid AI-Tayyar Auto Est. Omar Abduemana Marketing Manager. ( 35 ) IT has not been pointed out as to how this letter was obtained. The concerned persons had not been examined. There is absolutely nothing on record to show the circumstances under which the letter was written by the author. It was never the case of the petitioner that Khalid at Tayyar was the sole agent. The Inquiry Officer has extracted the note at page 27 in Exhibit S-4 had referred to Exhibit S-9 to come to the conclusion that the statement of the petitioner about Khalid at Tayyar Establishment is false. The Inquiry Officer in the report had not applied her mind "to the material on record. ( 36 ) THE Inquiry Officer makes a digression in para 3. 2. 8 by making a distinction between the sole selling agent and main agent and whether the car was purchased from the sole selling agent or the main agent. The Inquiry Officer in the report had not applied her mind "to the material on record. ( 36 ) THE Inquiry Officer makes a digression in para 3. 2. 8 by making a distinction between the sole selling agent and main agent and whether the car was purchased from the sole selling agent or the main agent. The Inquiry Officer observed : "finally the fact that no distinction was observed between sole agent or main agent is evident from the notes at pages 26 and 27 of Ex. S. 4 and approval given by him. M/s. Badly Maser and Co. Shri Phillip P. M. at page 26 but was stated to be sole selling agent of Toyota by Shri Dave. On the other hand M/s. Alghanim who was stated to be main dealer for American cars by Shri Phillip was conveniently ignored by Shri Dave as well as the Charged Officer. " ( 37 ) THE Inquiry Officer decides that "the Charged Officer s arguments that he was not expected to locate the sole selling agents and that he had only gone there to arrange funds for the purpose is not accepted. " The observations of the Inquiry Officer is that the "negotiations were carried out with the parties on 19. 3. 1979 and 20. 3. 1979 by Shri Dave and the Charged Officer and the other two members of the L. P. C. viz. Project Manager and Finance Manager were ignored," is not at all supported by any evidence. The Finance Manager was examined as DW-2 Mr. N. K. Jindal and his evidence is contra to what the Inquiry Officer had observed. The Inquiry Officer would assume "in this case it is seen that all norms and rules were flouted". This is also not supported by any evidence. The Inquiry Officer would further observe " the evidence shows that quotations were not called from different firms and deal was finalised by Shri Dave and the Charged Officer with M/s. Khalid Al Tayyar who was not even a main dealer of Impala Cars but was only a private Auto Importing Establishmentin Kuwait. " This is also contrary to the evidence and the stutus of M/s. Khalid at Tayyar has been spoken to by DW-2 about which there was no cross-examination at all. " This is also contrary to the evidence and the stutus of M/s. Khalid at Tayyar has been spoken to by DW-2 about which there was no cross-examination at all. ( 38 ) THE approach of the Inquiry Officer is fully biased is evident from what she observed " there is in factno evidence to show that M/s. Khalid at Tayyar was the lowest bidder". The Inquiry Officer had completely ignored the circumstances under which the Impala Car was purchased for Rs. 80,000. 00 and the payment was made and there was no objection from any quarters. The Inquiry Officer had concluded: "it has, therefore, been established that the Charged Officer in connivance with Shri B. P. Dave,the then C. P. M. Iraq recorded a false note dated 22. 3. 1979 to the effect that there was no sole selling agent for Impala car at Kuwait whereas M/s. Alghanim and Sons were the sole selling agents for the same during the relevant period. Article of Charge 1 has thus been established against the Charged Officer. " ( 39 ) IT is not established by the NBCC that in the year 1979, M/s. Alghanim and Sons was the sole sel ling agent for the Impala Car. We now proceed to Charge No. 2. Charge No. 2 is in the following terms ; "the said Shri R. K. Gupta further connived with Shri B. P. Dave, the then CPM, Iraq in not pointing out in their note dated 22. 03. 1979 that there was no approval of the Competent Authority for purchase of Impala car. Shri R. K. Gupta had thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and dvotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Corporation. He had thus contravened Rule 3 (1) of the NBCC Service (Conduct) Rules, 1969. " ( 40 ) IN the report the Inquiry Officer would refer to the case of the Disciplinary Authrority in the following manner : The case of the Disciplinary Authority is that the Charged Officer further connived with Shri Dave in not pointing out in their note dated 22. 3. 1979 that there was no approval of the Competent Authority for purchase of Impala Car. 3. 1979 that there was no approval of the Competent Authority for purchase of Impala Car. ( 41 ) THE defence of the petitioner is mentioned by the Inquiry Officer in the following words: The Charged Officer s defence is that in Government Undertakings, the Chief Executive considering emergency of the situation authorises purchases/ actions which are ratified by the Board of Directors. The Charged Officer explained that though purchases were mooted in December, 1978 the actual approval of the Board was accorded on 2. 5. 1979 (page 10 of written brief of the Charged Officer ). The Charged Officer added that the C. P. M was competent to authorise such purchases, nevertheless in this particular case, the C. M. D. had approved the purchase of Impala car and his short deputation to Kuwait in Ex. D-7. " ( 42 ) BEFORE dealing with Charge No. 2 the question of malice on the part of second respondent Mr. S. C. Kapur the then CMD of the NBCC has to be considered which would give us about which the way in which he was responsible for the action against the petitioner. ( 43 ) THE car was purchased as per the decision of the LPC for Rs. 80,000. 00 in March, 1979 in Iraq. The petitioner was to oversee the transactions. Mr. N. K. Jindal DW-2 was working in Baghdad in the year 1979 had deposed that there was no controversy about the purchase. Nothing is mentioned about Mr. Dave, the Chief Project Manager of Baghdad who was the Officer-in-charge of the Organisation at that time. ( 44 ) ON 2. 5. 1979, there was a meeting of the Board of the NBCC, nobody had raised any of the dispute about the purchase of the car. The then CMD was present at the meeting and who had signed Exhibit D-7, which is the approved of the note of the office which is in the following terms: NBCC Ltd. 2nd March, 1979 I have sent a list of requirements of plants and machines, vehicles, materials etc. for University makes vide my letter No. BCD/ub/670 dated 17. 12. 78. As already agreed to by you, majority of items have already been considered. However, the SCV including the Chevorlet Car for VIPs and clients could not yet be purchased by LPC during their recent visit to Kuwait in Feb. for University makes vide my letter No. BCD/ub/670 dated 17. 12. 78. As already agreed to by you, majority of items have already been considered. However, the SCV including the Chevorlet Car for VIPs and clients could not yet be purchased by LPC during their recent visit to Kuwait in Feb. , 79 due to non-availability of funds. Despite my repeated reminders, funds have not been arranged by HQ. I request HQ may please arrange to place the funds requested on SOS basis so that LPC may buy the cars and avoid hire charges. sd/- 2. 3. 79. ( 45 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner there were differences of opinion between him and Mr. S. C. Kapur and the petitioner did not agree with the CMD in respect of a few matters and the CMD, therefore, wanted to take action against the petitioner. It is well settled that malice in law is a matter of inference from facts placed before the Court. Mr. Kapur the second respondent had not produced any material to show that he received any complaint from Baghdad about the purchase of the car. There is a tour report by Mr. P. N. Sadhu which is stated to the year of 1979 marked as Exhibit S-10. He has not been examined. When he summoned by the petitioner to examine on his side that was refused by the Inquiry Officer without assigning any reasons. It is obvious from the attitude of the Inquiry Officer that she had acted according to what dicates Mr. S. C. Kapur. We put a question to the learned Counsel appearing for the NBCC to know about the present position of Shri S. C. Kapur. The learned Counsel submitted that he had retired from service. He has not even chosen to file an affidavit in reply to the writ petition. The Government of India should have taken note of the gross-misuse of powers of Mr. S. C. Kapur, the then CMD. To complete the chain of events in this behaft, it may be noticed that Mr. S. C. Kapur has directed to take statement from Mr. M. L. Choudhari (SW-4), and the statement taken by Mr. Kapur, Mr. Choudhari was marked as Exhibit S-15. ( 46 ) WHEN we look at the way in which the inquiry has been conducted by examining SW-4, the failure to examine Mr. P. N. Sadhu and Mr. S. C. Kapur has directed to take statement from Mr. M. L. Choudhari (SW-4), and the statement taken by Mr. Kapur, Mr. Choudhari was marked as Exhibit S-15. ( 46 ) WHEN we look at the way in which the inquiry has been conducted by examining SW-4, the failure to examine Mr. P. N. Sadhu and Mr. Phillip and letting off Mr. Dave. the inference is irresistible that Mr. S. C. Kapurhad started the process with a view to punishing the petitioner and he had determined to go his own gait and untramrnbled by the basic prindple of natural justice. The petitioner relied upon Exhibit D-7 to prove his case of approval of the then CMD Mr. S. C. Kapur, had signed Exhibit D-7 as I have noticed above. The case of the NBCC is that that is not available in the file. The signature of the then CMD is not disputed by the NBCC. The petitioner during the course of the inquiry sought a direction to the Presenting Officer to produce documents. The Inquiry Officer directed the NBCC to give inspection of documents that was not done and this aspect was not dealt by the Inquiry Officer at all apparently at the instance of Mr. S. C. Kapur, the second respondent. SW-4 would depose that he was working as Purchase Officer in Bagdhad Unit from 1977 to September, 1979. He would confirm the statement given in Exhibit S-15. He would state that Mr. S. C. Kapur, Chairman, took statement (Ex. S-15) at Bombay, the statement was recorded in his office at Bombay. He would state that nobody was present and he gave his statement through his memory. The statement was taken by Mr. S. C. Kapur at Bombay on 13. 3. 1983. No detailed discussions or analysis would be necessary to come to a decision that Exhibit S-15 had been brought into the existence by Mr. S. C. Kapur for the purpose of Inquiry. We are very much concerned to see such a state of affairs and such an action by the CMD by Mr. S. C. Kapur with jurisprudence should have been approved by the Board of NBCC and should have decided to himself punishment of dismissal. The Supreme Court had held that any action of the Administrative Authority taken for an extraneous and collateral purpose, is vitiated. S. C. Kapur with jurisprudence should have been approved by the Board of NBCC and should have decided to himself punishment of dismissal. The Supreme Court had held that any action of the Administrative Authority taken for an extraneous and collateral purpose, is vitiated. The petitioner had made specific allegation against the 2nd respondent Mr. S. C. Kapur that because he did not oblige the second respondentin certain matters and he he chosen to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against him. The 2nd respondent has not chosen to file any reply. The facts of the case would also go to prove the case of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is guilty of misusing the power. The position was clearly laid down by the Supreme Court reported in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1986 SC 872 in the following words: The use of a power for an alien purpose other than the one for which the power is conferred is mala fide use of that power. Same is the position when an order is made for a purpose other than that which finds place in the order. The Supreme Court approved the view of the Judicial Review of Administrative Action by Professor De Smith 4th edition in the following terms : The concept of bad faith eludes precise definition, but in relation to the exercise of statutory powers it may be said to comprise dishonesty (or fraud) and malice. A power is exercised fraudulently if its repository intends to achieve an object other than that for which he believes the power to have been conferred. . . . A power is exercised maliciously if its repository is motivated by personal animosity towards those who are directly affected by its exercise. The learned Judge has observed : If the Court concludes that the discretionary power has been used for an unauthorised purpose it is generally immaterial whether its repository was acting in good or bad faith. But there will undoubtedly remain areas of administration where the subject matter of the power and the evident width of the discretion resposed in the decision maker render its exercise almost wholly beyond the reach of judicial review. In these cases the Courts have still asserted jurisdiction to determine whether the authority has endeavoured to act in good faith in accordance with the prescribed purposes. In these cases the Courts have still asserted jurisdiction to determine whether the authority has endeavoured to act in good faith in accordance with the prescribed purposes. In most instances the reservation for the case of bad faith is hardly more than a formality. But when it can be established, the Courts will be prepared to set aside a judgment or order procured or made fraudulently despite the existence of a generally worded formula purporting to exclude judicial review. The Supreme Court further laid down : Bad faith is here understood by the learned author to mean intentional usurpation of power motivated by considerations that are incompatible with the discharge of public responsibility. In requiring statutory powers to be exercised reasonably, in good faith, and on correct grounds, the Courts are still working within the bounds of the familiar principle of ultra vires. The Court assumes that Parliament cannot have intended to authorise unreasonable action which is therefore ultra vires and void. This is the express basis of the reasoning in many well-known cases, on the subject. A necessary corollary is that, as usual throughout administrative law, we are concerned only with acts of legal power i. e. acts which, if valid, themselves produce legal consequence. The Supreme Court has further held : In general, however, the Courts adhere firmly to the wise meaning of jurisdiction since this is the sheet-anchor of their power to correct absues. They appearto bewilling to stretch the doctrine of ultra vires to cover virtually all situations where statutory power is exercised contrary to some legal principles. There are many cases in which a public authority is held to have acted for improper motives or irrelevant considerations or have failed to take account of relevant considerations, so that its action is ultra vires and void: H. W. R. Wade s Administrative Law, 5th Edition at pp 42, 348 and 369. The learned author apthly sums up situations in which error of jurisdiction may arise at p. 42. "lack of jurisdiction may arise in many ways. There may be an absence of those formalities or things which arc conditions precedent to the Tribunal having any jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry. Or the Tribunal may at the end make an order that it has no jurisdiction to make. "lack of jurisdiction may arise in many ways. There may be an absence of those formalities or things which arc conditions precedent to the Tribunal having any jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry. Or the Tribunal may at the end make an order that it has no jurisdiction to make. Or in the intervening stage, while engaged on a proper inquiry, the Tribunal may depart from the rules of natural justice; or it may ask itself the wrong questions; or it may take into account matters which it was not directed to take into account. Thereby it would step outside its jurisdiction. it would turn its inquiry into sosmething not directed by Parliament and fail to make the inquiry which Parliament did direct. Any of these things would cause its purported decision to be a nullity". Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end design. There is a distinction between exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith. The former arises when an authority misuses its power in breach of law, say, by taking into account bonafide, and with best of intentions, some extraneous , matters or by ignoring relevant matters. That would render the impugned act of order ultra vires. It would be a case of fraud on powers. The misuse in bad faith arises when the power is exercised for an improper motive, say, to satisfy a private or personal grudge or for wreaking vengeance of a Minister as in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (1964) 4 SCR 733 : ( AIR 1964 SC 733 ). A power is exercised maliciously if its repository is motivated by personal animosity to wards those who are directly affected by its exercise. Use of a power for an alien purpose other than the one for which the power is conferred is mala fide use of that power. Same is the position when anorder is made for a purpose other than that which finds place in the order. Use of a power for an alien purpose other than the one for which the power is conferred is mala fide use of that power. Same is the position when anorder is made for a purpose other than that which finds place in the order. The ulterior or alien purpose clearly speaks of the misuse of the power and it was observed as early as in 1904 by Lord Lindley in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Overtown, 1904 AC 515, that there is a condition implied in this as well as in other instruments which create powers, namely, that the powers shall be used bonafide for the purpose for which they are conferred It was said by Warrington C. J. in Short v. Poole Corporation, (1926)1 CH 66 that : "no public body can be regarded as having statutory authority to act in bad faith or from corrupt motives, and any action purporting to be of that body, but proved to be committed in bad faith or from corrupt motives, would certainly be held to be inoperative". In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 2 QB 702 at Pp 712-13 Lord Denning, LJ said: "no judgment of a Court, no order of Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything". "see also in Lazarus case at p. 722 Lord Parker, C. J : "traud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity. "all these three English decisions have been cited with approval by this Court in Pratap Singh s case. In Dr. Ram Manohar Lahia v. State of Bihar, (1966)1 SCR 709 : ( AIR 1966 SC 740 ), it was laid down that the Courts had always acted to restrain a misuse of statutory powers and more readily when improper motives underlie it. Exercise of power for collateral purpose has similarly been held to be a sufficient reason to strike down the action. Exercise of power for collateral purpose has similarly been held to be a sufficient reason to strike down the action. In State of Punjab v. Ramjilal, (1971)2 SCR 550 : ( AIR 1971 SC 1228 ) it was held that it was not necessary that any named officer was responsible for the act where the validity of action taken by a Government was challenged as mala fide as it may not be known to a private person as to what matters were considered and placed before the final authority and who had acted on behalf of the Government in passing the order. This does not mean that vague allegations of malafide are enough to dislodge the burden resting on the person who makes the same though what is required in this connection is not a proof to the hilt, as held in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, (1966) Supp SCR 311: ( AIR 1967 SC 295 ) the abuse of authority must appear to be reasonably probable. ( 47 ) THE Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570 held that in order to give a finding on mala fide the petitioner should make clear allegations and the particular official concerned should be add as a party. Here these two conditions arc fulfilled by the petitioner. ( 48 ) MR. S. C. Kapur the then CMD did not think to file counter affidavit and that would go to show that he had nothing to deny. ( 49 ) IN the light of this, the position Mr. S. C. Kapur was wholly instrumental in framing the charges against the petitioner is clearly established. ( 50 ) WE shall now go to the examination of the materials relating to charge No. 2. Mr. S. C. Kapur, SW-2 does not speak about this approval. Mr. R. S. Joon was examined as SW-2 would state that he joined as JE in February, 1979 at Baghdad. He would touch on the condition of the car. He would refer to Exhibit S-5 which is stated to be a history sheet of the car. He would also refer to Exhibit S-13 stated to have been a letter written by him. There is no date in the letter. It is stated to be in reply to the letter dated 21. 08. 1983. He would refer to Exhibit S-5 which is stated to be a history sheet of the car. He would also refer to Exhibit S-13 stated to have been a letter written by him. There is no date in the letter. It is stated to be in reply to the letter dated 21. 08. 1983. The evidence of SW-2 does not show anything about the question of approval.