A. K. MATHUR, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against the Order passed by a learned single Judge dated 9th August, 2001 in C. O. No. 10081 (W) of 1996 whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and set aside the enquiry report, the order of punishment by the disciplinary authority as well as the order passed by the appellate authoriy confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The learned single Judge, however, left open for the disciplinary authority to pass final order in accordance with law after completion of necessary enquiry upon examination of witnesses as intended by the petitioner. Aggrieved against this order the present Appeal has been filed by Union of India. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts which are necessary for disposal of this Appeal are that the petitioner was serving as a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force in Farakka Barrage Project Unit (for short CISF ). The incumbent was served with a Charge sheet and 5 charges were framed against him. The Enquiry Officer after recording the necessary evidence and hearing both the parties, found all the charges proved against the incumbent. Thereafter the disciplinary authority passed the Order of removal from his service on 6. 8. 1994/5. 4. 1995. Aggrieved against this, the incumbent preferred an Appeal on 3. 5. 1995 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CISF, North Eastern Zone, Calcutta, who disposed of the same by his order dated 18th April, 1996. Aggrieved against both these orders, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition. The writ petition was contested by the Respondent by filing affidavit-in-opposition and the learned single Judge after hearing both the parties found all Charges rightly proved before the Enquiry Officer. He observed with regard to Charge No,. 1 and 2 as follows :"with regard to the liability to attend regimental duty like parade, attending the orderly room etc. as contained in charges 1 and 2 of the article of charges it does not appear that the petitioner's contention relating thereto can be accepted as being a member of the disciplined force the petitioner appears to be required to attend the said duties and nothing has been shown by the petitioner justifying a contrary finding. as contained in charges 1 and 2 of the article of charges it does not appear that the petitioner's contention relating thereto can be accepted as being a member of the disciplined force the petitioner appears to be required to attend the said duties and nothing has been shown by the petitioner justifying a contrary finding. " ( 3 ) LIKEWISE for Charge No. 3 he observed :"but in view of the findings on facts which appears to be correct no interference can be made with this regard. " ( 4 ) FOR Charge No. 4 and 5 also found to be proved by him and he observed:"with regard to charge Nos. 4 and 5 the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted as in my opinion sufficient materials are available on record to substantiate the said charge and this Court is not to seat in appeal over the findings in the disciplinary proceedings. " ( 5 ) THEREFORE, as per the findings recorded by the learned single Judge it appears that all the 5 charges stood proved in a departmental enquiry. The learned single Judge only found one lacuna with regard to one defence witness Mr. S. N. Singh, who declined to give any statement in defence of the delinquent and he submitted his unwilling certificate. Therefore, he could not be examined. Thus, the learned single Judge found to be in breach of the principles of natural justice and set aside the departmental enquiry and the order of punishment by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority. This view taken by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. When all the five charges have been found to be proved by the learned single Judge who did not find any lacuna in them, then there was no occasion to record that because of the non-examination of one defence witness the entire proceedings should be quashed. Simply because Mr. S. N. Singh who declined to appear as a defence witness on behalf of the delinquent, it cannot be presumed that the entire enquiry stands vitiated. The delinquent had already filed his own written statement and he examined one witness Sri A. K. Dutta (Marine) and simply because one person has not examined that would not render the enquiry bad. S. N. Singh who declined to appear as a defence witness on behalf of the delinquent, it cannot be presumed that the entire enquiry stands vitiated. The delinquent had already filed his own written statement and he examined one witness Sri A. K. Dutta (Marine) and simply because one person has not examined that would not render the enquiry bad. Non-examination of one witness specially on the basis of his unwillingness cannot render the whole enquiry bad on account of breach of principles of natural justice. The delinquent has to show that on account of non-examination of one witness in what way he was prejudiced resulting in the breach of principles of natural justice so as to vitiate the whole of the enquiry. More so, while the learned single Judge found that all the 5 charges have been proved against the delinquent, there was no option but to dismiss the writ petition. In a matter of departmental enquiry one has to take care to see that whether non-examination of one of the witnesses or non-production of some of the documents has the effect of vitiating the whole enquiry of not. This question has to be judged from the principles of what prejudice has been caused to him on account of non-examination of one of the witnesses or non-production of some of the documents. The Courts normally do not sit as a Court of appeal while exercising certiorari jurisdiction in the departmental enquiries. Court has to take an objective approach and has to prove into the matter that whether one or two lacuna can render the whole of the enquiry bad or not. Therefore, one has to see the overall feature whether the delinquent has been given a reasonable opportunity or not. In the present case, the delinquent had full opportunity of filing his own written statement, he had the full opportunity of inspection of the documents, he had an opportunity to examine one of the witnesses in his defence. Just because one officer who gave his unwillingness as a defence witness cannot render the whole enquiry bad or vitiate the whole departmental enquiry. If out of the 5 charges 2/3 charges are established and they are substantial in nature, then just because one of the charges having not been proved, then also the Courts are not supposed to interfere unless the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the delinquency. If out of the 5 charges 2/3 charges are established and they are substantial in nature, then just because one of the charges having not been proved, then also the Courts are not supposed to interfere unless the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the delinquency. In the present case all the 5 charges have been found proved by the learned single Judge and the charges are of grave nature that the incumbent being a member of the Defence Force did not attend the Parade and he was found sleeping while on duty and while chasing the country boat failed to start the engine of a speed-boat to catch the country boat that entered into the protected area in a downstream. This exhibited a gross negligence on his part. Therefore, looking from this aspect also, we are satisfied that the punishment awarded to the delinquent is not grossly disproportionate. Hence, we allow the appeal of Union of India and set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 9-8-2001 and dismiss the writ petition. No Order as to costs. J. K. Biswas, J.-I agree. Later on 19th July, 2002 if urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment and order is applied for by the learned counsel for the parties, the same may be made available to them upon compliance of all the formalities. Appeal allowed