JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet along with details of charges which reveal that he was charged with misconduct of having recorded in cash book entries of amount received from the members on different dates, after the accounts were audited and therefore they could not be included in the net total and the corresponding entire were made in the account without crediting the amount paid. However, since the amounts were not included in the total, the case amount received by the petitioner, without issuing the receipts, was not accounted for at the close of the day on respective dates when the entries were made in the cash book and were not included in the total. This resulted in depicting incorrect cash balance of much lower sum at the close of that day and has not been accounted for. 3. Another charge which was levelled against the petitioner was that he has received cash from members towards dues which were outstanding to them amounting to Rs.11,302/- on different dates. Such amount was not at all deposited in the cash book on the respective dates or thereafter and was directly credited to the accounts of the respective members, therefore, while the members got the credit of amount paid by them, the amount having not been shown in the cash book, the amount was not accounted for in the handling of cash. Thus, the amount received from 11 persons amount to Rs.20,042/- and amount of Rs.11,302/- from another members was misappropriated by the petitioner for his own use. 4. In response to the notice, a reply was submitted in which no specific answer was given whether the aforesaid entries were or were not made or the cash amount was ever accounted for instead, the petitioner questioned how and why inquiry has been instituted against him when the audit has not raised any objections about the aforesaid entries in the last 10 years, ignoring that the charge was levelled that the entries had been made only after the adult has been conducted, and therefore, there could not have been any audit objection. 5. 5. Another feature which appear from the petitioner's reply is that he took the plea that the concerned cash book was lost in 1980 itself while he was returning from Mandore where he was called along with accounts book. 1 However, the report about such loss was lodged exactly six years thereafter in 1986. It is rather coincidence in the reply submitted by the petitioner that the record of 79-81 is alleged to have lost on 15.5.1980. The complaint was lodged exactly 6 years thereafter on 16.5.1986. The only reply which has emerged from the petitioner's reply was that there may be mistake in total but had there been any un accounting, it would have been reported by the member and since there has not been any objection from the Audit, it is now known on what basis this allegation has been levelled against him. He also took the plea that enquiry against him has been made after his transfer from the place of posting which should have been culminated in his favour. However, no reference to any specific entry was made in the reply. The plea was also taken that so far as members are concerned, they have not raised any complaint. That also obviously did not refer to the charge levelled against him inasmuch as no charge was levelled 15 against him that the amount paid by the members were not credited for in the respective accounts of members concerned. Therefore, as a matter of fact, on the basis of the accounts maintained of the respective members with the Bank, there was no discrepancy between the amounts deposited by the members and accounted for in their respective accounts. The charge was only in respect of not accounting the said amount in the cash book or even if accounted after the accounts were audited and not included in the total. The amount was also released by the petitioner is not in dispute. However, no explanation has been given that when the total cash in cash book was shown at a lesser sum, how the cash balance, which ought to have been much more than the cash book totals showed, has been accounted for or dealt with. 6. The amount was also released by the petitioner is not in dispute. However, no explanation has been given that when the total cash in cash book was shown at a lesser sum, how the cash balance, which ought to have been much more than the cash book totals showed, has been accounted for or dealt with. 6. Since the petitioner wanted an enquiry in respect of the aforesaid charge, details of which in turn explains the particulars and details of all the entries made in cash book but not included in total, and all the transactions of cash receipts which have not entered the cash book, did not require any separate and further detail or reference to material on which the Disciplinary Authority relied on. 7. The enquiry was continued and the relevant cash book was required to be placed on record. The disciplinary authority who was himself conducting the enquiry, by order dated 5.5.1992. finding against the petitioner was recorded in the order sheet and by order dated 25.5.1992, order dismissing the petitioner was made, such is subject matter of challenge. 8. The principal ground of challenge is that inquiry has not been conducted in a fair and reasonable manner which has prejudiced the petitioner. The principal contention of the petitioner is that it is a case of no evidence, therefore, the enquiry should be quashed in its entirety. On the other hand, the respondent has contended that the petitioner has rot presented himself as and when he was required to present and has failed to appear himself, therefore, he cannot raise complaint about breach of principles of natural justice. The record of proceedings have also been filed along with the petition. From the perusal of the record of proceedings, one thing is apparent that notwithstanding the state of affairs of the pleading that the relevant cash book and other accounts were 5o produced before the Disciplinary Authority only on 5.5.1992 when the petitioner was not present before him, though he was present on the previous date of hearing on 6.4.1992 when the Assistant Executive Officer was not present with the relevant record. About the presence of the petitioner no inference can be drawn because his appearance is not recorded in the order sheet dated 6.4.1992 Be that as it may, after the record was produced, when petitioner was not present before the Disciplinary Authority, and if no further evidence by the employer was to be produced, the least that was required to the Disciplinary Author *.y to fix a date and call upon the delinquent to produce his evidence, if any. However, the Disciplinary Authority instead of giving an to opportunity to the delinquent for leading evidence of his defence, straight away proceeded to record his finding by examining the record himself and gave a notice of proposed punishment of dismissal by fixing a date 25.5.1992. In pursuance of the said notice, on 25.5.1992 when the petitioner was not present, the impugned order was passed. 9. From the record of proceedings, it is apparent that the evider :e on which the reliance was placed by the Disciplinary Authority, viz. the cash book and other record has been placed on the file of disciplinary proceedings only on 5.5.1992 and thereafter, no opportunity was given to 20 the petitioner for rebuttal by placing any material on record in favour of his defence. This has vitally prejudiced the case of the petitioner. Even if the petitioner was absent and the evidence was produced by the departmental representative of the disciplinary authority, the minimum that was required was to fix a date informing the petitioner to produce his defence, if he so 25 desires. In case he would not have availed the opportunity it could hove been justifiably said that the petitioner has failed to take the opportunity available to him. 10. In the present case, no opportunity has been offered to he petitioner, after department representative has placed the material on Much he relied on, to rebut that evidence. The proceedings, therefore, suffer from patent infirmity of breach of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.5.1992 (Annex.3) is quashed and the Disciplinary Authority is permitted to proceed with the enquiry from the stage the Assistant Executive Officer has presented the relevant record before him. The proceedings, therefore, suffer from patent infirmity of breach of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.5.1992 (Annex.3) is quashed and the Disciplinary Authority is permitted to proceed with the enquiry from the stage the Assistant Executive Officer has presented the relevant record before him. The petitioner may be allowed to inspect that record, if he so desires, on which the reliance has been placed by the departmental representative to prove the charge levelled against him and an opportunity be given to the petitioner for leading evidence, if he so wants, in support of his defence. The inquiry be completed within a period of six months from the date of service of the writ or presenting the certified copy of the order whichever is earlier. The question of emoluments for the period during which he remained out of service shall be subject to the final outcome of the enquiry. 12. There shall however be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed As Above. *******