R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) DISMISSED Second Division Clerk is before me questioning the dismissal of his service on 30-3-1995. He has sought for quashing of the punishment order Annexure-W and also seeking for a direction to refund the petitioner an amount of Rs. 52,021. 34 in addition to a further direction for fixation of his gratuity etc. He has also sought for damages against the respondent. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are as under: petitioner was suspended on 7-8-1972 on the ground of certain omission and commissions on his part while working in the Corporation based on an audit report. The suspension is a subject-matter of writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 645 of 1979. This Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions. " (I) The respondent was to complete the enquiry against the petitioner on or before 16-11-1979; (ii) If the enquiry is not completed before the said date the petitioner shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits to which he is entitled from the date of suspension; (iii) The respondents are also directed to pay current subsistence allowance i. e. , from the date it was payable to the petitioner, in the meanwhile; (iv) All other contentions including the claim of the petitioner such as increments from 7-8-1972 to 6-9-1975 are left open". Even after the disposal of the writ petition the petitioner was not reinstated and the petitioner was obliged to initiate contempt proceedings for his reinstatement. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT has issued Annexure-B, show-cause notice alleging various omission and commission on the part of the petitioner while working as a Bill Clerk in the Meter Section during the year 1966-1972. Petitioner has made several representations Annexures-D, E and F and other documents, seeking for copies of these documents for the inspection of the same to the respondent to submit his explanation. Though the respondent has asked him to visit the office for inspection of documents the office according to the petitioner has not made available any of the document vide Annexure-J. Petitioner also submitted an explanation to the show-cause notice dated 20-9-1999. He has also denied the allegation of misappropriation of municipal fund to the tune of Rs. 52,021. 34. ( 4 ) ANNEXURE-M is the order appointing another Enquiry Officer in the place of the earlier Enquiry Officer. He has also denied the allegation of misappropriation of municipal fund to the tune of Rs. 52,021. 34. ( 4 ) ANNEXURE-M is the order appointing another Enquiry Officer in the place of the earlier Enquiry Officer. The second Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry according to the petitioner. As per Annexure-M, the enquiry Officer was to avail services of the officials probably for the purpose of deposition before the Enquiry Officer. No enquiry as such has been conducted, no witness has been examined, and no documents are marked by consent. It appears the petitioner moved this Court by way of contempt petition to complete the enquiry. ( 5 ) THE next Enquiry Officer viz. , Y. R. Habib, Assistant Commissioner was appointed in terms of the order dated 8-1-1994. He has submitted his report vide Annexure-T, at page 49. From the report it is seen that though no witness as such was examined in support of the charges against the petitioner, he has found him guilty. He states as under at page 51:"the delinquent is obstructing the finalisation of the proceedings on one hand and questioning the appointment without pointing out the provisions. During the course of inquiry a charge-sheet was given and oral hearing was fixed but he has not replied to the charges and he has not attended for oral enquiry". The petitioner has not denied the misconduct levelled against him in his objection but also subsequently contended that there is no enquiry at all and there is every denial of every opportunity to him in the enquiry conducted by Sri Y. R. Habib, Enquiry Officer in the affidavit filed before. The Corporation has passed the impugned order Annexure-W, dismissing the services of the petitioner on the last date of retirement on the basis of the report of the Assistant Commissioner and further ordering withholding of the sum of Rs. 52,021. 34. It is this order that is challenged before me. ( 6 ) MR. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice. He contended that the entire charge-sheet is based on a audit report for the period between 1966-72. It is his case that in spite of several requests the respondent has denied him of not only the documents but also inspection of the same. He contended that the entire charge-sheet is based on a audit report for the period between 1966-72. It is his case that in spite of several requests the respondent has denied him of not only the documents but also inspection of the same. His further complaint is that without examining any witness fee Enquiry Officer could not have found him guilty in his report. He submitted that the entire initiation of the proceedings culminating in submission of report is in violation of principles of natural justice and any reliance on such unsustainable proceedings is unsustainable in law. He concluded that the dismissal order annexure-W in the circumstances is in violation of all accepted principles of natural justice amount into denial of reasonable opportunity to his client. ( 7 ) PER contra Smt. Nalini Venkatesh, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that the petitioner at every point of time prevented the completion of the enquiry by raising various issues and finally the Enquiry Officer had to complete the finding based on the records placed before him. She supported the report of the Commissioner. According to her documents were given to the petitioner before the Criminal Court. ( 8 ) BEFORE I consider the rival pleas on merits I have to dispose of the preliminary objection raised by the Counsel for the respondent. She maintained that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner and therefore it is a bar for maintaining this petition before this. Court. Sri joshi, learned Counsel submitted that the writ petition has been admitted by this Court and his client has already retired from service and therefore it cannot be a bar for final disposal on merits by this Court. He relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in L. Hirday Narain v Income- tax Officer, Bareilly. ( 9 ) 1 find some force in the argument of Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petition was filed in the year 1995 and the rule has been issued and pleadings are placed before this Court. Petitioner has now retired from the service. Petitioner's services has been terminated on the last date of retirement. In the circumstances in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court I overrule the objection of alternative remedy raised by respondent on the facts of this case. Petitioner has now retired from the service. Petitioner's services has been terminated on the last date of retirement. In the circumstances in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court I overrule the objection of alternative remedy raised by respondent on the facts of this case. ( 10 ) I have gone through the pleadings and the materials placed before me. A serious allegation of misappropriation has been made against the petitioner by the respondent, basing on the audit report for the year 1966-72. Admittedly, the charge-sheet was issued during the year 1979. A look at the charge-sheet shows that there are no factual details forth- coming in the charge-sheet except making bald statement/allegations against the petitioner. No details are forthcoming in the charge-sheet. Petitioner cannot be expected to remember what transpired in the year 1966 during 1980. In these circumstances petitioner sought for records from the respondents to meet their case. From the material placed before me I find that respondent has not made available those documents in spite of several requests resulting in denial of a reasonable opportunity to him. Even in inquiry report the Enquiry Officer has relied upon various documents without examination of any witness in support of the case of the Corporation. It is well-settled that in any departmental proceedings the Management has to examine witnesses in support of the case, in case of the denial of the charges by the delinquent officer. The inquiry Officer cannot on his own rely on some documents to hold against the petitioner. The entire procedure of the Enquiry Officer referred to above shows that at every point of time respondent committed breach in observing well-accepted principles of natural justice. When serious allegations are made, that too of misappropriation the respondent ought to take all possible steps to prove that the petitioner is guilty of the serious charges levelled against him by examination of witnesses with documents before Enquiry Officer. The burden has not been properly ischarged by the respondent. In the circumstances the Enquiry officer in my opinion has committed a patent error in relying on some documents behind the back of the petitioner to hold against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has also noticed in the report that the petitioner did not attend the enquiry in his finding. The burden has not been properly ischarged by the respondent. In the circumstances the Enquiry officer in my opinion has committed a patent error in relying on some documents behind the back of the petitioner to hold against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has also noticed in the report that the petitioner did not attend the enquiry in his finding. If the petitioner does not attend enquiry nothing prevented the Corporation by examining witnesses by placing the petitioner ex parte. Therefore, the petitioner's not attending enquiry cannot be ground for non-examination of witnesses in support of the case on hand. The Enquiry Officer also noticed Section 90 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, which provides for punishment. The said Section 90 does not in any way deal with the proceedings to be conducted by an Enquiry Officer. It is ununderstandable as to how the Enquiry Officer could recommend and propose a punishment without any opportunity, under Section 90 as held by him in the report. Taking into consideration the entire material placed before me I have no option except to accept the argument of Sri J6shi, learned Counsel that entire proceedings is in violation of principles of natural justice. Any enquiry in violation of rules of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted by the Disciplinary Authority to punish the petitioner. ( 11 ) IN identical circumstances it appears a criminal case was launched against the petitioner on the same set of facts and Criminal court after contest has acquitted the petitioner herein. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above I set aside the order at Annexure-W and order the respondent to pay him withheld benefits. The entire proceedings are declared as unsustainable in law. ( 13 ) IN the normal circumstances I would have remanded the case for fresh enquiry. Admittedly in the case on hand the incident relates to the period of 1966 and the petitioner has already retired from service. There are also no details in the charges levelled against the petitioner. In the circumstances no useful purpose would be served in remanding the case, that too after 33 years. In these circumstances the writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The respondents are directed to refund to the petitioner the amount withheld within 2 months from today with 18% interest from the date of dismissal till the date of payment to the petitioner. In these circumstances the writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The respondents are directed to refund to the petitioner the amount withheld within 2 months from today with 18% interest from the date of dismissal till the date of payment to the petitioner. Petitioner is also entitled for all other retirement benefits. No costs. --- *** --- .