JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order imposing penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year and also the order passed by the appellate authority affirming the said order of penalty. 2. The facts narrated in the writ petition are that the Petitioner while serving under the Respondents as Lower Division Assistant (LDA) was sent from the office to one business establishment known as M/S Bhajanlal, to collect four calculators. On his visit, the Petitioner was asked by one of the inmates of the business establishment as to whether he knew one Sri. N.K. Dutta, Sub Divisional Officer, Task Force. The said inmates also asked the Petitioner if he could help to resolve the matter relating to sealing of electricity meters, to which the Petitioner replied that the higher authorities could only settle such matters and he being the only LDA, was not in a position to render any help. The help that was asked for by the said inmate was in respect of the electricity meters which had been sealed. 3. The Petitioner intimated the Chairman, Meghalaya State Electricity Board (Me.S.E.B.) about the aforesaid incident and the Chairman directed the Petitioner to make a statement containing allegations against said Sri. N.K. Dutta, which the Petitioner declined to do. Further statement made in the writ petition is that the Chairman then called one Sri. K.P. Roy, the then Chief Engineer-cum-Secretary, to his chamber and asked him to get the necessary statement from the Petitioner and also directed him to suspend the Petitioner in case he declines to give the statement. Situated thus and the pressure being mounted on him, the Petitioner made the Annexure (ii), statement which is reproduced below: To, The Chief Engg. Cum Secretary, Sir, I went to Bhajanlal's shop, Police Bazar on 19.9.94 at about 1 to 2 P.M. for collecting of calculator. In that time shop owner talks with me about sealing of meter by S.D.O., N.K. Dutta (Rev. Task Force) on 18.09.1994 told me that can you settle the matter with N.K. Dutta, I shall pay the Rs. 20,000/-. Then told him that these case will be settled by S.D.O., not by me. I asked S.D.O. if he can settle the case. But, shop owner paid the money or not I do not know. Task Force) on 18.09.1994 told me that can you settle the matter with N.K. Dutta, I shall pay the Rs. 20,000/-. Then told him that these case will be settled by S.D.O., not by me. I asked S.D.O. if he can settle the case. But, shop owner paid the money or not I do not know. Sd/ Illigible 22.9.94 L.D.A. Revenue Circle. 4. After the aforesaid development, the Petitioner was issued with a show cause notice under Regulation 10 of the ASEB (General Services) Regulations, 1960, since adopted by the Me.S.E.B. The charges framed against the Petitioner were as follows: Charges: (a) Dishonesty in connection with the business of the Board as contemplated under Regulation 10(b). (b) Causing willful damage to Board's goods or property as contemplated under Regulation 10(c). (c) Disorderly conduct in connection with employment as contemplated under Regulation 10(h). 5. The statement of allegations on which the above charges were based was also enclosed which reads as follows: 1. Your written statement dated 22.9.94 to the address of the Chief Engineer cum Secretary is totally false and misleading. You have deliberately made a false statement in order to conceal your involvement in the conspiracy to extort illegal gratification from M/S Bhajanlal in collusion with Shri. N.K. Dutta, SDO, Task Force. 2. Your involvement with Shri. N.K. Dutta, SDO, Task Force is established from the fact that immediately after you were placed under service suspension you went to the premises of M/S Bhajanlal to remove all the tape sealings from the meter installations with the help of petrol in order to cause disappearance of incriminating evidence. In doing so, you have committed two offences: (1) gross misconduct by causing disappearance of incriminating evidence; (2) gross misconduct by carrying out an official function when you were under suspension. You have, therefore, committed acts of misconduct as constituted under Regulations 10(b), 10(c) and 10(h) of the ASEB (General Services) Regulations, 1960 since adopted by the Me.S.E.B. 6. The Petitioner submitted his show cause reply on 22.11.1994. In his reply, referring to the provisions of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 adopted by the Government of Meghalaya, the Petitioner stated that he ought to have been informed about the documents and the witnesses by which the article of charges were sought to be established. In his reply, referring to the provisions of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 adopted by the Government of Meghalaya, the Petitioner stated that he ought to have been informed about the documents and the witnesses by which the article of charges were sought to be established. He expressed his inability to submit his effective show cause reply in absence of the relevant materials. Reserving his right to submit an effective show cause reply, the Petitioner stated in his said reply that the aforesaid statement made by him on 22.09.1994 was correct and that the allegation made against him was without any basis. 7. Instead of furnishing the documents prayed for by the Petitioner, the Principal Chief Engineer, Me.S.E.B. intimated the Petitioner that his purported show cause reply was not satisfactory and, thus, the proposed departmental inquiry would proceed against him on the basis of article of charges referred to above. 8. A regular departmental inquiry was conducted against the Petitioner and on furnishing the inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer, the Petitioner was issued with the second show cause notice on 28.01.1998 asking him to show cause as to why the proposed penalty of stoppage of three increments should not be inflicted on him. Along with the second show cause notice, the Petitioner was also furnished with a copy of the inquiry report. As per the report, the Petitioner was held to be not guilty of the charge Nos. 2 and 3, however, the charge No. 1 was held to be established. 9. The Petitioner, by his representation, dated 04.02.1998, replied to the second show cause notice explaining the circumstances leading to the events narrated above. In his representation, he submitted that the Inquiry Officer failed to arrive at a proper conclusion and findings in respect of charge No. 1. 10. After submission of the aforesaid representation by the Petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, passed the impugned order, dated 09.03.1998 imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment. With the imposing of the penalty, the order of suspension passed against the Petitioner, on 22.09.1994, was revoked with immediate effect. 11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of penalty, the Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the appellate authority urging various grounds. The appeal was dismissed by order, dated 29.06.2001, upholding the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority. 12. 11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of penalty, the Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the appellate authority urging various grounds. The appeal was dismissed by order, dated 29.06.2001, upholding the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority. 12. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, the Appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the aforesaid order of penalty and the order passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of penalty. 13. The Respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner. According to them, the inquiry was conducted in a proper and fair manner giving all reasonable opportunities to the Petitioner. It is the case of the Respondents that the charge No. 1 having been established against the Petitioner, the penalty of stoppage of one increment was passed and the appellate authority rightly upheld the order of penalty. 14. I have heard Mr. K. Paul, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. K.S. Kyn jing, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Sunar, learned Advocate for the Respondents. 15. Mr. Paul submitted that the Petitioner has been made the victim of the circumstances. Referring to the above quoted annexure (ii) statement, he submitted that the same was taken from him applying force and that even if the statement is taken on its face value, there is nothing to indicate that the Petitioner was in any way connected with the incident. He submitted that the charges framed against the Petitioner are all vague and indefinite. He also submitted that all the charges being inter-related to one another and the charge Nos. 2 and 3 having been held to be not established, the Petitioner could not have been held to be guilty of charge No. 1. 16. Placing reliance of the judgment of this Court passed on 27.10.1999 in the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 16(SH) 1999 concerning said Shri. N.K. Dutta, who was also imposed with the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on the same set of charges, Mr. Paul, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the writ petition filed by Shri. N.K. Dutta, having been allowed by this Court, the Petitioner should also be given similar treatment. Be it stated here that the said judgment was affirmed on appeal preferred by the Me. Paul, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the writ petition filed by Shri. N.K. Dutta, having been allowed by this Court, the Petitioner should also be given similar treatment. Be it stated here that the said judgment was affirmed on appeal preferred by the Me. S.E.B. The Petitioner has annexed the copies of the aforesaid judgments and orders, dated 27.10.1999 and 02.05.2002 as Annexure 23 and 24 respectively. 17. Countering the above argument made by Mr. Paul, learned Counsel for the Me.S.E.B., Mr. K.S. Kynjing, submitted that the aforesaid two judgments have no application to the facts and circumstances involved in this case. He submitted that the charge established against the Petitioner is of very serious nature and there being no irregularity in conducting the departmental inquiry against the Petitioner, the writ Court will not sit on appeal over the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer and the consequential order of imposition of penalty against the Petitioner. He submitted that having regard to the gravity of the offence committed by the Petitioner, the penalty imposed on the Petitioner is by way of taking a lenient view of the matter. 18. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials available on record. The charges levelled against the Petitioner have been quoted above. On the face of it, all the charges are vague and indefinite. Nothing was indicated in the charges as to on what count the Petitioner was guilty of the three charges. The statement of allegations is also not in respect of the charges. A general statement of allegation was annexed to the charge-sheet alleging that the Annexure (II) statement which has been quoted above was totally false and misleading and that the Petitioner deliberately made a false statement in order to conceal the involvement in the conspiracy to extort illegal gratification in collusion with said Shri N.K. Dutta, SDO, Task Force. Further allegation made in the statement of allegation is that the Petitioner immediately after his suspension went to the premises of M/S Bhajanlal to remove all the tape sealing from the meter installations with the help of petrol in order to cause disappearance of incriminating evidence It is on the basis of such statement of allegation, the three articles of charges were framed against the Petitioner. 19. 19. There is no dispute that the Petitioner was not made known about the documents and witnesses on the basis of which the charges were sought to be established. It is on that count, the Petitioner by his representation, dated 22.11.1994 prayed for furnishing of the documents enabling him to submit an effective show cause reply. However, the disciplinary authority instead of providing him with the relevant materials, took the representation, dated 22.11.1994 as the show cause reply and decided to hold an inquiry against the Petitioner. 20. The Inquiry Officer while holding the Petitioner to be guilty of the charge No. 1 referred to the statement of one Shri. R.S. Rynjah, Deputy Secretary (Pers) and the alleged admission on the part of the Petitioner. However while doing so, the Inquiry Officer has not stated as to what was the statement made by Shri. R.S. Rynjah and the Petitioner. Simply by referring to the alleged statements, the Inquiry Officer has held the Petitioner guilty of the charge No. 1. For ready reference, the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the charge No. 1 is quoted below: From the statement made Shri. R.S. Rynjah, Deputy Secretary (Pers), during examination and also admission made by accused Shri. B.P. Singh himself, it is established that Shri. B.P. Singh did visit the premises of M/S Bhajanlal and had a discussion with one of the inmates of M/S Bhajanlal regarding settlement of meter sealing done by Shri. N.K. Dutta, Assistant Executive Engineer (under suspension). During examination Shri. B.P. Singh also admitted that he did not communicate the discussion held with the inmate of M/S Bhajanlal regarding settlement of meter sealing done by Shri. N.K. Dutta, to his controlling officer Shri. B.S. Syngai, the then Superintending Engineer, Revenue Circle. In view of the above, I find Shri. Bharat Prasad Singh guilty of the charge regarding dishonesty in connection with the business of the Board by suppressing the fact to his Controlling Officer. 21. As against the aforesaid findings in respect of the charge No. 1, the Inquiry Officer found that the charge Nos. 2 and 3 levelled against the Petitioner have not been established. As noticed above, there is no definite charge against the Petitioner supported by any definite statement of allegation in respect of each of the charges. 21. As against the aforesaid findings in respect of the charge No. 1, the Inquiry Officer found that the charge Nos. 2 and 3 levelled against the Petitioner have not been established. As noticed above, there is no definite charge against the Petitioner supported by any definite statement of allegation in respect of each of the charges. However, the Inquiry Officer in his report narrated the incident relating to the allegation of removal of tape sealing of the meter installations and has held that the charge No. 2 has not be established. As regards the charge No. 3, the Inquiry Officer has held that there is no evidence to prove that the Petitioner had gone to the premises of M/S Bhajanlal, after his suspension, to remove the tape sealing from the meter installation. Thus, the Inquiry Officer, as per his own methodology in conducting the inquiry capitulated the charge Nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of the allegation of removing the tape sealing from the meter installations and the alleged visit of the Petitioner to the shop premises of M/S Bhajanlal after his suspension. However, both the allegations have been held to be not established. 22. As against the aforesaid findings in respect of charge Nos. 2 and 3, the Inquiry Officer has held that the charge No. 1 has been established. As per his own innovation, the Inquiry Officer capitulated the charge No. 1 to be the purported discussion of the Petitioner with the inmate of M/S Bhajanlal regarding the settlement of meter sealing done by Sri. N.K. Dutta, to his Controlling Officer. 23. As against the aforesaid findings in respect of charge No. 1, in the first part of the statement of allegation, the above quoted Annexure (II) statement, dated 22.09.1994 addressed to the Chief Engineer-cum-Secretary was stated to be klse and misleading so as to conceal the involvement of the Petitioner in the conspiracy to extort illegal gratification from M/S Bhajanlal in collusion with Shri. N.K. Dutta, SDO, Task Force. As regards the second part of the allegation, the same was incorporated in charge Nos. 2 and 3 by the Inquiry Officer. However, the said two charges have been held to be not established. 24. In the aforesaid backdrop, the charge No. 1 will have to be considered in the touchstone of the first part of the statement of the allegation annexed to the chargesheet. 2 and 3 by the Inquiry Officer. However, the said two charges have been held to be not established. 24. In the aforesaid backdrop, the charge No. 1 will have to be considered in the touchstone of the first part of the statement of the allegation annexed to the chargesheet. Even in the statement of allegation, the charge levelled against the Petitioner is vague and indefinite. Nothing has been stated as to how the statement made by the Petitioner was false and misleading and as to how the same had been made for concealing the involvement of the Petitioner, with said Shri. N.K. Dutta, in the conspiracy to extort illegal gratification from M/S Bhajanlal. In absence of any disclosure of material particulars, either in the charge No. 1 or in the statement of allegation, the inquiry could not have been proceeded as per the understanding of the Inquiry Officer. This is precisely the reason as to why the Petitioner in his representation against show cause notice prayed for furnishing all the relevant materials enabling him to make an effective show cause reply. However, the same was not furnished to the Petitioner which naturally resulted in great prejudice to the defence of the Petitioner. 25. Even in the findings in respect of charge No. 1 recorded by the Inquiry Officer, which has been quoted above, the Inquiry Officer simply made a reference to the statements made by Shri. R.S. Rynjah and the alleged admission on the part of the Petitioner. However, while doing so, he has not even obliquely stated as to what was the statement made by Shri. R.S. Rynjah and the Petitioner. Even if the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer that the Petitioner admitted that he did not communicate the discussion held with the inmate of M/S Bhajanlal regarding the statement of meter sealing done by Shri. N.K. Dutta, to his Controlling Officer, is held to be correct that by itself cannot establish the first part of the statement of allegation pertaining to making a false statement in order to conceal the involvement of the Petitioner in the conspiracy to extort illegal gratification from M/S Bhajanlal. In the report, the Inquiry Officer has not stated anything as to the making of false and misleading statement by the Petitioner in order to conceal his involvement in the conspiracy to extort illegal gratification from M/S Bhajanlal in collusion with Shri. N.K. Dutta, SDO, Task Force. Thus, apart from the fact that the charge No. 1 levelled against the Petitioner is vague and indefinite, even if the same is linked up with the first part of the statement of the allegation as has been done by the Inquiry Officer, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer does not indicate that the said charge has been established against the Petitioner. 26. There is another aspect of the matter. The charge No. 1 is stated to be based on the first part of the statement of allegation indicating involvement of the Petitioner in collusion with Shri. N.K. Dutta, SDO, Task Force. After a regular departmental proceeding, Shri. N.K. Dutta was also imposed with the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. This Court on the writ petition filed by Shri. N.K. Dutta, which was registered as Civil Rule No. 16 (SH) 1999, held that the charge against Shri Dutta was not established. In that case also the Chairman of the Me.S.E.B. arrived at the findings that the writ Petitioner was guilty of misconduct because of the material suppression of facts with a view to make wrongful gain. However, on the basis of the materials on record, this Court held that the order imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment was not sustainable. In that case also, the order of penalty was upheld by the departmental appellate authority and the same was also set aside by this Court. A direction was issued to take consequential steps for payment of dues to the Petitioner which might have become admissible to him. 27. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, Me.S.E.B. preferred WA No. 18(SH)/2000. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order, dated 02.05.2002. The Division Bench noted about the charge levelled against the writ Petitioner, i.e., Shri. N.K. Dutta. The charge was of taking illegal gratification from M/S Bhajanlal. In the judgment, there is a mention about the present writ Petitioner who had visited the business shop of M/S Bhajanlal for collection of calculators for the office. The Division Bench noted about the charge levelled against the writ Petitioner, i.e., Shri. N.K. Dutta. The charge was of taking illegal gratification from M/S Bhajanlal. In the judgment, there is a mention about the present writ Petitioner who had visited the business shop of M/S Bhajanlal for collection of calculators for the office. In the judgment, it has been also recorded as to how the writ Petitioner reported the matter relating to sealing of meters by said Shri. N.K. Dutta. This factum of reporting the matter by the Petitioner to the authorities of the Me.S.E.B. was duly taken note of in the said judgment and order. 28. Be that as it may, since the whole basis of the only charge held to be established against the Petitioner is the alleged endeavour on the part of the Petitioner to conceal the involvement in the conspiracy to extort illegal gratification from M/S Bhajanlal in collusion with Shri. N.K. Dutta, SDO, Task Force, the said Shri Dutta having been held to be not guilty of the charge, the Petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of the charge No. 1 which pertains to the allegation of doing something illegal in collusion with Shri. N.K. Dutta. 29. Apart from the above, I have carefully gone through the statements made by Shri R.S. Rynjah and the Petitioner on the basis of which the charge No. 1 has been held to be established. There is nothing to indicate that the Petitioner was involved in any manner in respect of the first part of the statement of allegation made against the Petitioner, based on which the charge No. 1 was framed. 30. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside and quashed which I accordingly do. 31. Consequent upon setting aside and quashing of the impugned order of penalty, dated 09.03.1998 and the appellate order, dated 29.06.2001, the effect of penalty of stoppage of one increment does not remain in the field and the Petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. Consequently the order of suspension passed against the Petitioner also shall have no effect. The disciplinary authority by its impugned order, dated 09.03.1998 ordered to treat the period of suspension as dies non. This was done without asking for any explanation from the Petitioner. Consequently the order of suspension passed against the Petitioner also shall have no effect. The disciplinary authority by its impugned order, dated 09.03.1998 ordered to treat the period of suspension as dies non. This was done without asking for any explanation from the Petitioner. On that count also the order is not sustainable. In any case, there could not have been an order for treating the period of suspension as dies non which may even lead to break in service. However, in view of the setting aside of the impugned order of penalty and the appellate order, the period of suspension shall be treated as on duty and the Petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits including full salary for the period of suspension. 32. The writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.