JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.2.1993 passed by respondent No. 3 Director (Production) Heavy Machines Building Plant, H.E.C. Ltd. Ranchi imposing punishment upon the petitioner of his removal from service on the basis of charges proved in a departmental proceeding and also the order dated 17.11.1994 passed by the Appellate Authority in a departmental appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner was in the service of respondent Heavy Engineering Corporation as Store-keeper Grade I. In 1992, he was served with a memo of charges dated 13.5.1992 alleging inter alia that petitioner while working as a Store-keeper fraudulently issued materials (steel plants) to M/s. Ranjai Tools an ancillary unit at Tupudana. He also prepared fraudulent gate pass in connivance with the said firm and its authorized representative Sri R.N. Jha. Further, charges were that he did not make proper entries in the material accounting records of the store and caused loss of Rs. 1 lakh by reason of his irregular and dishonest service. Petitioner submitted his reply to the said charges. The reply submitted by the petitioner was found unacceptable and therefore by letter dated 7.9,1992 it was decided to hold a departmental inquiry against the charges and an inquiry officer to that effect was appointed. The Inquiry Officer after holding an inquiry submitted his inquiry report to the effect that the charges have been proved. On the basis of inquiry report the concerned respondent as the disciplinary authority issued office order dated 9.2.1993 imposing punishment on the petitioner of his removal from service. On receipt of the communication petitioner by letter dated 11.5.1993 requested the respondents to supply copy of the finding of the inquiry officer as the same was not supplied till date. In response to the said letter respondents by letter dated 19.5.1993 supplied copy of the inquiry report. Petitioner then preferred appeal before the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, H.E.C. Ltd. who is the appellate authority. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of punishment as being illegal and violative of principle of natural justice. Petitioner then preferred appeal before the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, H.E.C. Ltd. who is the appellate authority. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of punishment as being illegal and violative of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that the presenting officer neither produced any witness nor produced any document in support of charges but the Inquiry Officer on erroneous assumption that those charges were admitted by the petitioner submitted his report holding that charges have been proved. Learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary authority and the Inquiry Officer have relied upon various documents without supplying it to the petitioner which shows that there is gross violation of principle of natural justice. According to the learned counsel when the reply to the charges was not found acceptable to the respondents, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated then how the disciplinary authority could have held the petitioner guilty of charges without taking the evidence in the inquiry proceeding and without recording a positive finding. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the impugned order of punishment is neither violative of the principle of natural justice nor is perverse in law and therefore this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order of punishment. Learned counsel further submitted that adequacy of evidence cannot be challenged before this Court in writ jurisdiction and judicial review cannot be done on the ground of adequacy of evidence. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1999 (8) SCC 90 , and in the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patii and Anr., 2000 (1) SCC 416 . 5. As noticed above, on receipt of memo of charges petitioner filed his reply/representation to the said charges. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ application (Annexure A). The concerned respondent by letter dated 7.9.1992 informed the petitioner that the explanation given by him in the said reply was found unacceptable and therefore a departmental proceeding was initiated. Admittedly before the Inquiry Officer no oral or documentary evidence were adduced by the Presenting Officer in support of the charges. The concerned respondent by letter dated 7.9.1992 informed the petitioner that the explanation given by him in the said reply was found unacceptable and therefore a departmental proceeding was initiated. Admittedly before the Inquiry Officer no oral or documentary evidence were adduced by the Presenting Officer in support of the charges. However, on the basis of inquiry report the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment of removal of the petitioner from service. It is also not disputed that after the submission of inquiry report by the inquiry officer and before passing the impugned order of punishment copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. It is only after the order of punishment was passed the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. Copy of the inquiry report has been annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. It would be very useful for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this writ petition, to quote one page inquiry report which reads as under : "Sub : Departmental enquiry into the charges levelled against Sri Paramhans Singh P. No. 33311, S.K. Gr. I.--The enquiry was conducted in the office of the undersigned on 27.10.1992. The process of enquiry was over by the end of the 1st sitting itself as the DE accepted the charges levelled against him. The DE with DC was given full opportunity to say whatever he likes to say. The enquiry process records are there in the file from C-40 to C-42. All the pages have been signed by IO (the undersigned), PO, DE and DC. One copy each of the record note was given to DE and PO and receipt obtained on the back page of C-40. I visited the stores also and found that the copy of gate pass No. 47576 was missing from its position and there it was mentioned so under the signature of two persons. From the dates of the gate passes it is evident that the materials against gate passes have been issued in fraudulent manner and no record kept. Some times materials have first been issued (4.6.1988) in a fraudulent manner and then issued (9.6.1988) in a regular manner. As there are documentary proofs as also acceptance by the DE, all the charges are proved." Sri R.C. THAKUR Manager (State) & Disciplinary Authority Sd/- (V. Thakur) Manager / Marketing I.O. 6. Some times materials have first been issued (4.6.1988) in a fraudulent manner and then issued (9.6.1988) in a regular manner. As there are documentary proofs as also acceptance by the DE, all the charges are proved." Sri R.C. THAKUR Manager (State) & Disciplinary Authority Sd/- (V. Thakur) Manager / Marketing I.O. 6. From perusal of the aforesaid inquiry report it is clear that the Inquiry Officer concluded the enquiry on the first hearing. Not only that he at his own visited the stores and perused various records and other materials and assuming that petitioner admitted the charges, submitted the said inquiry report holding that the charges have been proved. 7. There is nothing in the reply to the charges filed by the petitioner which shows, as held by the Inquiry Officer, that charges have been accepted by the petitioner. A copy of the reply has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ application which is also Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. In the said reply as against first charge, petitioner stated that he was not in a position to accept or deny the charges. According to him, he might have prepared and signed the gate pass for releasing steel plates against the requisition made available to him. He was not aware about the fact that those gate passes were prepared fraudulently without having any valid reasons. Petitioner further stated in his reply that due to heavy pressure of work the irregularities could remain unnoticed. Petitioner is unequivocal terms denied the charges and stated that his previous record is unblemished and he was rewarded with Merit Certificate by the management for his good performance. Even if any irregularity was committed, he may be exonerated of the charges. 8. As noticed above, this reply was not accepted by the management and therefore it was decided to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Consequently, the Inquiry Officer was appointed. Having regard to these admitted facts. I am of the opinion that the Inquiry Officer has committed serious error of record in accepting that charges were admitted by the petitioner and assuming that petitioner admitted the charges he concluded the inquiry and submitted his report that the charges have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have also not considered this aspect of the matter and have passed order of punishment on the basis of inquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have also not considered this aspect of the matter and have passed order of punishment on the basis of inquiry report. The order of punishment therefore cannot be sustained in law. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order of punishment is quashed. However, liberty is given to the Management to proceed afresh from the initial stage of inquiry by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take decision in accordance with law.