JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Initially the petitioner filed this writ petition for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to change the venue of the departmental proceeding from Hyderabad to Bokaro Steel City and also for change of the Enquiry Officer as also the Presenting Officer but since during the pendency of the writ petition final order of dismissal of the petitioner from service in the said ex parte departmental proceeding has been passed, the petitioner has also challenged the order of dismissal by filing amendment petition which has been allowed by order dated 22.3.99. 2. Facts of the case in briefs is that the petitioner joined the service of the respondents in 1968 and he was to superannuate on 31.12.2000. In the year, 1994 he became the member of a Committee under a scheme known as Employees Voluntary Welfare Fund. There were four members in the said Committee including Sri B.L. Roy, a senior officer of the respondents of the status of General Manager. Out of four persons of the Committee cheques were to be issued under the joint signatures of any of the two members to the beneficiaries under the said scheme. In 1997 a Charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on the basis of statement of allegations that 12 cheques were signed by the petitioner during the period May, 1996 to August, 1996 as a committee member which were presented for the signature by one Sri P.N. Gupta of the Accounts department. Those 12 cheques were issued under the joint signatures of the petitioner and another member of the Committee, namely, Sri B.L. Roy. It was alleged that the petitioner had aided in the misappropriation of the amount drawn against the said 12 cheques. On the basis of the charge-sheet a proceeding was initiated and the Enquiry Officer was appointed, After holding sittings of the enquiry at Hyderabad and Bokaro the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the departmental enquiry ex parte and submitted enquiry report. On the basis of the enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order by way of dismissal of the petitioner from service. 3. Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the entire departmental enquiry and the order of punishment as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. On the basis of the enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order by way of dismissal of the petitioner from service. 3. Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the entire departmental enquiry and the order of punishment as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer, in spite of the protest and objection made by the petitioner, proceeded with the enquiry at Hyderabad and concluded it ex parte without giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel drew my attention to various documents including the minutes of the proceedings of the departmental Inquiry and submitted that the Enquiry Officer had decided to conclude the inquiry against the petitioner so as to enable the Disciplinary Authority to pass the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Learned counsel lastly submitted that although Mr. B.L. Roy against whom also a departmental proceeding was initiated but he was given a minor punishment of stoppage of two increments. 4. Mr. R.S, Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner participated in the enquiry but on the last date of the proceeding he withdrew himself from the enquiry when his prayer for stay of the departmental proceeding was refused by the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner deliberately and intentionally did not participate in the enquiry with the sole object to delay the proceeding and in that view of the matter the Enquiry Officer had no option but to proceed with the enquiry ex parte and conclude the same. 5. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the following questions need consideration by this Court in this writ application : (i) Whether the departmental proceeding was conducted by the Enquiry officer in accordance with the settled norms and procedures and whether full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before concluding the enquiry ? (ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him ? 6. (ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him ? 6. So far first question is concerned, I would like to discuss the manner in which the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry. Admittedly the entire incidence, as alleged in the charge-sheet, had taken place at Bokaro where the petitioner was posted in the office of the respondents. The respondents appointed Mr. Rajendra Singh, General Manager posted at Hyderabad as Enquiry officer. The first sitting of the enquiry was fixed on 20,12.97 at HSCL, office Bokaro but on the ground of sudden demise of the father-in-law of the petitioner it was adjourned to 27.1.98 and the sitting was fixed at Hyderabad. It appears from annexure 4 to the writ application that the petitioner immediately raised objection with regard to shifting of venue from Bokaro to Hyderabad and also requested for supply of certain documents. That objection was replied by the Enquiry Officer vide his letter dated 29.1.98 (Annexure-4). The Enquiry Officer, in the said letter, stated that the request of the petitioner for shifting the venue of the enquiry from Hyderabad to Bokaro at this stage cannot be considered. As against supply of necessary documents, it was replied by the Enquiry Officer that some of the documents cannot be supplied to him as it relates to involvement of other officials. On the first date of sitting i.e. on 27.1.98 the petitioner did not appear and the next date for sitting of the enquiry was fixed on 3.3.98. The petitioner reached Hayderabad at late hours because of derailment of the train. So the sitting was held on 4.3.98. The petitioner appeared and insisted for supply of documents. The petitioner also made a prayer for stay of the proceeding as he is demanding change of the Enquiry Officer as also supply of necessary documents. The Enquiry Officer rejected the prayer of the petitioner and again fixed the second sitting on the same day i.e. on 4.3.98. The 3rd sitting was held at 10.30 a.m. In that sitting a witness produced by the Presenting Officer was examined and the Enquiry Officer fixed the fourth sitting on the same day i.e. on 4.3.98 at 3 p.m. The petitioner then requested the Enquiry Officer to give him time for the purpose of study of the documents. The 3rd sitting was held at 10.30 a.m. In that sitting a witness produced by the Presenting Officer was examined and the Enquiry Officer fixed the fourth sitting on the same day i.e. on 4.3.98 at 3 p.m. The petitioner then requested the Enquiry Officer to give him time for the purpose of study of the documents. The petitioner further requested the Enquiry Officer that because of ailment he was not able to travel long distance to Hyderabad and, as such, the sitting may be held at Bokaro Steel City. The petitioner also insisted for stay of the proceeding till the supply of all the documents. The Enquiry. Officer adjourned the next sitting to 31.3.1998 at Bokaro. In the meantime, on 19.3.1998 the petitioner filed the instant writ application. The Enquiry Officer received a fax message from the Chief General Manager, Bokaro intimating that the petitioner was suffering from instable Angina and his case has been referred from Bokaro hospital to CMCH, Vallore and the petitioner was planning to proceed to Vallore on 31,3.1998. On receipt of the said fax message the Enquiry officer preponded the sitting from 31.3.1998 to 28.3.1998 so that the enquiry may be concluded. On 28.3.1998 the Enquiry officer held the fifth sitting. On that date the petitioner filed an application enclosing a copy of the writ petition stating that he had moved the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench and a request was made not to proceed with the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer rejected the request of the petitioner stating that his writ petition will be dealt with by the competent authority separately. When the Enquiry Officer was bent upon to proceed with the enquiry, the petitioner withdrew himself from the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held sixth sitting on the same day i.e. on 28.3.98 at 3.30 p.m. and concluded the enquiry ex parte. 7. On these admitted facts, prima facie, I am of the view that the Enquiry- Officer has not conducted the enquiry properly and proceeded so hastily that he held 2-3 sittings in one day which itself shows that the Enquiry Officer was bent upon to conclude the enquiry even ex-parte without following the procedures of law and without giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the enquiry proceeding and the enquiry report are vitiated in law, the consequential order of punishment itself is liable to be quashed. Since the enquiry proceeding and the enquiry report are vitiated in law, the consequential order of punishment itself is liable to be quashed. Even assuming that the enquiry report can be acted upon, the order of punishment is totally disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 8. As noticed above, there were two Signatories of 12 cheques, namely, the petitioner and one B.L. Roy, the other senior officer of the respondents. The respondents also initiated departmental proceeding against B.L. Roy but the same has been concluded inflicting a minor punishment of stoppage of two increments. Hence there has been obvious discrimination also. 9. For all these reasons this writ application is allowed" and the entire departmental proceeding including the enquiry report and the order of dismissal of the petitioner are quashed. The respondents are directed to proceed afresh, if they so desire, by appointing another Enquiry Officer posted at Bokaro Steel City. The respondents are further directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of five months from today. It is made clear that the petitioner shall also cooperate in the enquiry and on his failure to do so, the respondents shall be entitled to proceed ex parte against the petitioner.