D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 7. 7. 1995, contained in annexure-17, after holding a domestic enquiry as against him on the ground that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. The petitioner had preferred an appeal departmentally which was dismissed by an order dated 19. 3. 1996, contained in Annexure-20 to the writ petition. These orders have since been challenged in this writ petition. ( 2 ) MR. Pramod Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said orders on the ground that while issuing the second show cause notice, copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. On account thereof, he had not been able to reply properly to the second show cause notice. Relying on various decisions of the Apex Court, he contends that non-furnishing of enquiry report along with second show cause notice vitiates the whole enquiry proceeding and the order of punishment passed thereon. He next contends that adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner to contest the enquiry. According to him though at the initial stage, the petitioner had participated in the enquiry but due to reasons personal to him, he was unable to participate in the enquiry at a later stage for which the enquiry was held ex parte. Therefore, in the absence of opportunity, the enquiry is vitiated. ( 3 ) HE next contends that on the basis of record it appears that the finding of the enquiry was perverse. Inasmuch as it has not taken into consideration various documents particularly the letter dated 30. 7. 1993 which was though not produced at the time of enquiry but was mentioned in reply to the second show cause notice. He then contends that even on the basis of the documents and the letters dated 6. 7. 1993 and 16. 8. 1993 no reasonable conclusion could be arrived at that the petitioner did not travel from Allahabad to Delhi and from Delhi to Jammu tawi. On the basis of this document, no such conclusion can be arrived at by any rational person. He next contends that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority had applied their mind. Though each of them purported to have passed an order supported by some reason, yet it does not reflect that they had applied their mind properly. On the basis of this document, no such conclusion can be arrived at by any rational person. He next contends that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority had applied their mind. Though each of them purported to have passed an order supported by some reason, yet it does not reflect that they had applied their mind properly. Therefore, the orders are to be set aside. In support of his contention he had relied upon various decisions to which reference would be made at appropriate stage. ( 4 ) MR. R. P. Goyal, learned counsel assisted by Shri Manish Goyal appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the second show cause notice was furnished to the petitioner which is apparent from the record and the admission made by the petitioner. Mr. Goyal further contends that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry at the initial stage but he did not participate at the later stage, despite successive notices were issued to him. If the petitioner does not avail of the opportunity and if the enquiry officer proceeded ex parte, in that even it cannot be termed to be an absence of opportunity. Mr. Goyal further relies on the findings of the enquiry officer and pointed out that the petitioner had been taking inconsistent stand at different stages and therefore, his case could not be believed. According to him scope of determination in Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of a finding in an enquiry is very limited. The Court can interfere only if there is perversity in the finding or that the conclusion is arrived at without any basis. In the present case there being certain material on which conclusion in one or the other way could be arrived at, even if the court is of a different view, it cannot interfere with the finding which is a finding of fact based on certain material. He then contends that both the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority had applied their mind. It is not necessary that the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority have to write a judgment in the manner a judicial officer is supposed to write. If there were sufficient indication that the authority had gone through the record. In that event, it would suffice to presume that the authority had applied their mind. It is not necessary that the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority have to write a judgment in the manner a judicial officer is supposed to write. If there were sufficient indication that the authority had gone through the record. In that event, it would suffice to presume that the authority had applied their mind. It is then contended that the letter dated 30. 7. 1993 was never produced during the course of enquiry and as such it was outside the record of enquiry and thus the same cannot be looked into either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority. According to him, the document was in the petitioners own possession even before the enquiry officer had submitted his report on 18. 1. 1994. Therefore, he cannot take advantage of his own laches and negligence. On these grounds he prays that the writ petition should be dismissed. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. ( 6 ) SO far as the question of second show cause notice not accompanied by the enquiry report is concerned, in paragraph 36 of the writ petition, the petitioner had contended that there was an endorsement in the second show cause notice that the enquiry report was enclosed with the same. But he contended that despite such endorsement, the enquiry report was not enclosed with the second show cause notice. In paragraph 33 of the counter-affidavit, it was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the second show cause notice was accompanied by the report of the enquiry officer. in paragraph 41 of the rejoinder-affidavit, the said fact was denied by the petitioner with specific denial that the second show cause notice did not accompany the enquiry report. Relying on this pleading, Mr. Jain contended in support of his contention that the second show cause notice did not accompany the enquiry report. While Mr. Goyal had asserted that it had. Both these statements are on oath. This Court cannot decide the statements and counter statements unless there are certain other materials to come to the conclusion in one or other way. In the present case. Mr. Jain has not been able to show that there was any statement anywhere before making the statement in paragraph 36 that second show cause notice did not accompany the enquiry report. In the present case. Mr. Jain has not been able to show that there was any statement anywhere before making the statement in paragraph 36 that second show cause notice did not accompany the enquiry report. In his usual fairness candidly he conceded that the petitioner had never put in writing before the pleadings in paragraph 36 was made, that the enquiry report was not furnished. It has also not mentioned in the reply given to the second show cause notice that the enquiry report was not furnished to him. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement made in paragraph 36 of the writ petition which is made for the first time when it was open to the petitioner to put it on record by a letter before giving reply to the second show cause notice or even incorporating the said statement in the reply to the second show cause notice that the enquiry report was not furnished. This fact was also not indicated in the memorandum of appeal and this ground was also not taken in the appeal. Thus, it clearly enables the Court to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case that the second show cause notice did not accompany the enquiry report. Thus, the reliance placed by Mr. Jain in the case of managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc. v. B. Karunakar, etc. , AIR 1994 SC 1094, wherein the question of non-furnishing of enquiry report was held to be fatal in view of the decision in the case of Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 and the decision in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Satnarendra Kishore Endow and another, JT 1994 (1) SC 217, cannot help Mr. Jain in, the fact and circumstances of the case. Inasmuch as in the present case, it is not possible to hold that the second show cause notice did not accompany the enquiry report. Mr. Goyal had relied on the decision in the case of Nagar palika Nataur v. U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and others, 1998 (2) SCC 400 , to contend that if despite opportunity, the reply is not given and the objection is not taken, in that event, the absence of enquiry report would not vindicate the principle of natural justice. Goyal had relied on the decision in the case of Nagar palika Nataur v. U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and others, 1998 (2) SCC 400 , to contend that if despite opportunity, the reply is not given and the objection is not taken, in that event, the absence of enquiry report would not vindicate the principle of natural justice. This decision is also inapplicable in the present case. ( 7 ) SO far as the question of denial of opportunity is concerned, Mr. Jain had admitted that at the initial stage, the petitioner had participated in the enquiry but at the subsequent stage, he did not. From the bar, he supported the same on the ground that the petitioner was not physically and mentally fit to participate in the enquiry. But those material facts are not on record. No material is present on record to come to such a conclusion that the petitioner was unable to appear and participate in the enquiry at a later stage. Though Mr. Jain contends that medical certificate was furnished to the Life Insurance Corporation but it was never communicated to the enquiry officer. Such facts are to be brought on record in the disciplinary proceeding. Unless such facts were brought on in the disciplinary proceeding and the enquiry officer is apprised of. it cannot be said that this is on record in the disciplinary proceeding. in support of his contention that this was brought on record, Mr. Jain relies on Annexure-RA 3 by which the petitioner wanted to resume his duty through a letter dated 7. 9. 1994. It is apparent that the enquiry report was submitted on 18. 1. 1994 whereas this fact was brought on record on 7. 9. 1994, which cannot be treated to be on record in the disciplinary proceeding. This document was also not disclosed in the pleadings in the writ petition. It was only by means of rejoinder-affidavit, the same has been sought to be brought on record. This document cannot be taken to be a proof that the petitioner was unable to participate in the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner had never asked for time or had put anything on record to postpone the enquiry proceeding during the course of the enquiry. in the absence of any such material, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity in the enquiry. The petitioner had never asked for time or had put anything on record to postpone the enquiry proceeding during the course of the enquiry. in the absence of any such material, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity in the enquiry. On the other hand, the enquiry reporl shows that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner. Mr. Goyal relied on the decision in U. P. State co. operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and others, 1999 (1) SCC 741 . In order to contend what is the scope of giving of an opportunity. He relied on paragraph 17 thereof. The Apex Court in the said decision had observed that Rules of natural Justice require that a party against whom an allegation is being inquired into should be given a hearing and not condemned unheard. As to what are the rules of natural justice be followed in a particular case would depend upon the circumstances in each case and must also depend on the provisions of law under which the charges are being inquired into in the disciplinary proceedings. In the said case, reliance was placed in the case of Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, AIR 1958 SC 398 , where the Apex Court had held that "the rules of natural justice vary with the varying constitution of statutory bodies and the rules prescribed by the Act under which they function and the question whether or not any rules of natural justice had been contravened should be decided not under any preconceived notions, but in the light of the statutory rules and provisions". ( 8 ) IF the ratio laid down in the above observation is applied in the present case, then it would appear that the opportunity that has been given to the petitioner does not contravene the principle of natural justice. Inasmuch as here the petitioner had been given notice and he had participated in the enquiry at the initial stage but at a later stage despite notices having been given, he did not participate in the enquiry. At the same time, it was not on record that the petitioner, due to reason personal to him, was unable to participate in the enquiry. As such on the facts of this case, it cannot be contended that opportunity was not given. At the same time, it was not on record that the petitioner, due to reason personal to him, was unable to participate in the enquiry. As such on the facts of this case, it cannot be contended that opportunity was not given. ( 9 ) FOR all these reasons, the decision cited in support of his contention with regard to scope and extent of giving opportunity viz. , S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , does not come to the rescue of the petitioners counsel. The principle laid down therein though a settled principle of law, but the same cannot be attracted here in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above. ( 10 ) NOW with regard to the question of perversity, my attention has been drawn to the enquiry report contained in Annexure-15 to the writ petition. In the said report, finding of the enquiry has been summarized in paragraph 5. There the enquiry officer had held that in the way-bill, the petitioner had mentioned journey by Tinsukiya Express on 16. 5. 1922 by circular ticket No. 02356 whereas in his letter dated 6. 7. 1993 the petitioner had mentioned that he had travelled by kalka Mail on 16. 5. 1992, further stating that the ticket No. 02356 was a ticket for extension of journey up to Jammu Tawi in II AC. He has also referred to in the said paragraph the letter dated 18. 1. 1994 by the petitioner that the ticket No. 02356 was not a ticket for the initial journey but was a ticket extending their journey to Jammu Tawi. The enquiry officer had held that the petitioner had taken different stand at different stage. On account of this discrepancy, the petitioners case could not be believed. He has also mentioned that there are certain discrepancies. Inasmuch as in his reply, the petitioner had mentioned the ticket No. 02356 as a circular ticket from Allahabad to Jammu Tawi and also returned by circular ticket No. 96784 at the same time he has also mentioned in last para of page No. 2 that ticket No. 02356 was an extension from Delhi to Jammu Tawi. In paragraph 3, internal page 14 of the said Annexure-15 being the enquiry report, the enquiry officer has mentioned that initial tickets for Journey from allahabad to Delhi were ticket Nos. In paragraph 3, internal page 14 of the said Annexure-15 being the enquiry report, the enquiry officer has mentioned that initial tickets for Journey from allahabad to Delhi were ticket Nos. 72122 to 72127 six tickets in First Class purchased from allahabad on 16. 5. 1992 and that It was converted into AC II tier by ticket No. 02356 was not proved. It was also proved that ticket Nos. 72122 to 72127 were not sold from Allahabad for delhi on 16. 5. 1992. It seems a little difficult to rely on the expression used in the said letter. Inasmuch as in the letter of the Chief Booking Clerk, contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, it was contended that those tickets were not traced. If it is not stated that such tickets were not sold from Allahabad. Untraceability does not imply that the tickets were not sold. ( 11 ) BE that as it may, this document does not conclusively prove that the petitioner did not undertake journey or purchased the ticket No. 72122 to 72127. The discrepancy that has been made capital of does not appear to be a material discrepancy. Inasmuch it is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased ticket from Allahabad to Delhi on 16. 5. 1992 which was extended up to Jammu Tawi on 16. 5. 1992 for which extension ticket No. 02356 was issued. It is the case of the petitioner that he has travelled by Tinsukiya Mail from Allahabad. But there is no material to ascertain at least from the materials on record for coming to conclusive decision that the petitioner did not travel by Tinsukiya Mail on 16. 5. 1992. It appears from Annexure-RA 4 issued by the Chief Ticket Inspector, Northern Railway, Allahabad, that cash receipt No. 02356 dated 16. 5. 1992 was issued to A. Mehta and family by the concerned ticket checking staff in 2456 Dn. train. The date of this letter is dated 30. 7. 1993, which was addressed to Shri Aneep mehta. In the office of the LIC. In reply to the show cause, the petitioner had referred to this letter and had contended that this letter was addressed to his office address but the same was never received by him. It is not disputed that at that point of time, the petitioner was not attending the office on account of his suspension. In reply to the show cause, the petitioner had referred to this letter and had contended that this letter was addressed to his office address but the same was never received by him. It is not disputed that at that point of time, the petitioner was not attending the office on account of his suspension. In all likelihood. It may be presumed that this letter was received by the office but was not given to the petitioner. At the same time, despite having received this letter, the office did not care to produce the same before the enquiry officer. If this letter was produced in that event, the enquiry officer might have taken a different stand. Therefore, it seems that there are some truth in the case made out by the petitioner. Inasmuch as if an extension of a ticket was issued in Tinsukiya Mall during the course of journey, it presupposes that the journey had been undertaken. Extensions are given against certain tickets. Therefore, this presupposes that there were certain tickets purchased by the petitioner against which such an extension was given. Nowhere it is the case of the respondents that this extension ticket was a fake one or that there was no extension of ticket at all. On the other the entire situation had made out a notional or imaginary discrepancy and inconsistency in the case of the petitioner. The question was whether the petitioner had undertaken the journey or not. The question was whether on the basis of the material on record, it could be proved that the petitioner did not undertake the journey. Since the respondents brought the charges, it was the burden on the respondents to prove the charges. The respondents had not procured sufficient material to prove the charges. The enquiry officer had proceeded on the basis of the weakness of the defence of the delinquent when the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges and prove it. Once the burden is discharged, the onus is shifted on the delinquent and then only the weakness of his case can be looked into. The respondents have not been able to do so. There is nothing on record to show that this letter dated 30. 7. 1993 received in the office of the respondents was ever handed over to the petitioner. The respondents have not been able to do so. There is nothing on record to show that this letter dated 30. 7. 1993 received in the office of the respondents was ever handed over to the petitioner. Inasmuch in his reply to the second show cause notice, the petitioner had mentioned that this letter was received in the office but the petitioner could not get the same, therefore, he had got a duplicate copy subsequently when this fact was brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority in his reply to the second show cause notice. The disciplinary authority ought to have adverted to it. It seems that the disciplinary authority had clearly ignored and overlooked it and had not adverted thereto. This omission to refer to this letter clearly indicates that the office of respondent No. 2 had received the said letter, and it was suppressed by the respondents and was not produced before the disciplinary authority. If the respondent disciplinary authority had adverted to it and discarded the allegation of the petitioner about the non-receipt of the letter, then only the respondent could contend that the petitioner, inspite of he is being in possession of the said letter, did not produce the same before the enquiry officer and as such is precluded from relying upon the same now. But no such allegation has been made as against the petitioner. Thus it presupposes that there are truth in the allegation made by the petitioner in his reply to the second show cause notice. In the memorandum of appeal, the petitioner had mentioned about this letter in paragraphs 16 and 19. The appellate authority had also not adverted to it. Non-reference to this letter dated 30. 7. 1993 both by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority clearly indicates non-application of mind on their part. Thus it appears that there are discrepancy in the finding of the enquiry officer. Though this document was not proceeded in the disciplinary proceeding but yet the same can be taken note of in view of the statement made by the petitioner that he was not in possession thereof till reply to the second show cause notice was given and there being no contradiction having been made by the respondents the said statement shall be presumed to be admitted by them. Thus, in case the vital document contained in Annexure-RA 4 verifying that the cash receipt No. 02356 was issued to the petitioner while travelling by train No. 2456 Dn which Mr. Jain states that this train is known as Tinsukiya Mail. ( 12 ) THUS, it appears that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse and have been arrived at on the basis of the material on record on the basis of which no reasonable man could have arrived at such conclusion. The enquiry officer was deprived of the benefit of the letter dated 30. 7. 1993 by reason of non-production thereof by the respondent themselves. Therefore, the respondents having suppressed the said letter cannot take advantage of their own wrong and contend that this letter was not part of the record and as such cannot be relied upon. ( 13 ) THUS, it appears that Mr. Jain has been able to bring home his point with regard to the question of perversity and that the question of non-application of mind as observed herein before. These are sufficient to vitiate the indictment of the punishment and the enquiry. ( 14 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The ordersp dated 7. 7. 1995 contained in Annexure-17 and the order dated 19. 3. 1996 contained in Annexure-20 are hereby quashed. Let a writ of certiorari do issue. ( 15 ) THIS order, however, shall not prevent the respondents if they are so advised to hold the enquiry afresh or from the stage before the submission of the enquiry report after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. However, there will be no order as to cost. .