Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to Standing Counsel No. Ill for the respondents. 2. This writ application substantially is directed against the order as contained in Annexure-21 issued vide Memo No. 658 dated 30.8.2004 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been punished in the departmental proceeding. 3. It appears that for misappropriation of Government money, a first information report was lodged against the petitioner and others and at the same time, a departmental proceeding was also initiated. For the criminal charge, the petitioner virtually was discharged as the police submitted final form. However, in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was asked to explain his conduct. The petitioner filed his written statement denying the charges. The written statement filed by the petitioner was treated to be his defence and on that score, he was found guilty and ultimately, was punished by the impugned order whereby and whereunder he has been reverted back to the post of Assistant Engineer from the post of Executive Engineer and further he would not be entitled to get anything for the period of suspension save and except subsistence allowance. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental proceeding was concluded in a manner unknown to law inasmuch as that no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner to adduce his evidence nor any witness was examined on behalf of the employer to prove charges against the petitioner and merely, on the basis of the written statement filed by the petitioner, the departmental proceeding was concluded holding him guilty. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the fact that no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence, would be evident from paragraph 40 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that the conducting officer on the basis of written reply and after hearing the petitioner, held him responsible for the charges levelled against him. 5. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the police had submitted final form prima facie finding the petitioner not guilty, that was also required to be considered by the disciplinary authority in the departmental proceeding as charges and facts of the case were common and in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony V/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another {(1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679}, the authorities were required to consider the police report. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents admitting the fact that save and except written statement filed by the petitioner, there was no evidence in the matter nor the petitioner was ever asked to adduce evidence. 7. In a departmental proceeding, the authorities have required to give sufficient opportunities to the delinquent to adduce evidence but admittedly, it has not been done. The action of the State authorities, in that view of the matter, appears to be arbitrary, unreasonable and without jurisdiction. 8. The procedure adopted by the State authorities, thus, appears to be quite unknown to law in a proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, the order impugned as contained in Annexure-21 is held to be arbitrary, unreasonable and wholly without jurisdiction. 10. In the result, this application is allowed. The order impugned as contained in Annexure 21 is set aside. However, the authorities may, if so advised, proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law.