JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J. 1. In the petition a prayer has been made to set aside the charge-sheets dated 16.12.2000 and second charge-sheet dated 9.2.2002, Inquiry Report, the impugned order dated 20.1.2003 whereby the Petitioner was dismissed from service by the In-charge Registrar, Assam Agricultural University and further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 24.6.2003 brought before the Court byway of amendment application (Enclosed as Misc. Case No. 2255 of 2003), whereby the appeal of the Petitioner was dismissed. 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the Petitioner was working as Assistant Professor in Assam Biswanath College of Agriculture and was placed under suspension on 23.10.2000 in reference to Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 in short called Rules 1964 for committing forgery forwarding his application to the Deputy Director General, ICAR, New Delhi under the false Memo number in the name of the University and purported to have issued by the signature of the forwarding authority. The Petitioner was served a show-cause notice without enclosing list of documents and witnesses to be relied upon. By order dated 16.12.2000 (Annexure-3) the Petitioner was excepted to give his response within ten days. Consequently, on 26.12.2000, the Petitioner made a request for furnishing all the documents, note-sheets etc. referred in the charge-sheet. In that reference on 11.1.2001, the Deputy Registrar, informed the Petitioner to indicate what documents were to be inspected. Therefore, on 13.3.2001 (Annexure-6) the Petitioner demanded letter No. 9(1) 2000-Edn. III dated 25.8.2000 and letter No. AAU/R-1283/3180-81 dated 8.8.2000. It appears in reference to request dated 23.5.2001 the Petitioner was allowed inspection of note-sheets. During inspection on25.5.2001, the Petitioner was alleged to have taken out some document said to be the undertaking dated 8.9.2000 (wherein the Petitioner has admitted his guilt) and the Petitioner is alleged to have made some interpolation by striking word you in such letter. According to the Petitioner to the best of his knowledge, no appointing authority said to have been appointed to enquire the matter however, this aspect has been controverted by the learned Standing Counsel for the University. However, the Petitioner was intimated on that he has to appear before Dr. B. Barman, Chief Scientist who was to hold enquiry. According to the Petitioner to the best of his knowledge, no appointing authority said to have been appointed to enquire the matter however, this aspect has been controverted by the learned Standing Counsel for the University. However, the Petitioner was intimated on that he has to appear before Dr. B. Barman, Chief Scientist who was to hold enquiry. On the said day, the Petitioner has appeared with written statement and subsequently on 27.8.2001 (Annexure-11-A) had also written to the Registrar to allow to adduce more documents and additional reply. The first show-cause notice dated 18.2.2002 (Annexure-17) was served with first undated inquiry report (Annexure-17-A) to give response within ten days. On the basis of the inquiry report finalized by Dr. B. Barman, Chief Scientist (Annexure-17-A) the Vice-Chancellor of the University said to have formed an opinion to remove the Petitioner from service. It appeals that different dates were fixed enquiry in connection to the second show cause in respect of the second incident which took place on 22.5.2001; was fixed for preliminary enquiry and on the prayer of the Petitioner hearing was deferred for 11.12.2002 however, on that day the Petitioner could not present, and request was made for deferment of inquiry but the ex-parte enquiry was concluded and inquiry report dated 23.11.2002 (Annexure- 35-A) was served to the Petitioner by letter dated 3.12.2002 which is placed as Annexure-35. Relying upon both the inquiry report, the Incharge Registrar i.e. the disciplinary authority terminated the service of the Petitioner vide order dated 20.1.2003 (Annexure-37). Hence the writ petition. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Rules 1964 has provided the provisions of the disciplinary proceeding and appeal. Section 6 deals with the suspension. Section 7 deals with the nature of penalties. Section 8 deals with the disciplinary authority. Section 9 deals with the procedure for imposing penalties. For convenience, the provision of Section 9 are extracted herein below: 9. Procedure for imposing penalties. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiry) Act, 1850, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 7 shall be passed except after an inquiry, held as far as may be, in the manner hereinafter provided. (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant, and he shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. At the time of delivering the charges, the Disciplinary Authority shall invariably furnish to the Government servant a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charges is proposed to be sustained. (3) The Government servant shall, for the purpose of preparing his defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify, provided that such permission may be refused if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority, such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the public interest to allow him access thereto; Provided that when a Government servant is permitted to inspect and take extracts from official records due care shall be taken against tempering, removal or destruction of records. (4) On receipt of the written statement of defence, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into such of the charge as are not admitted or, if it considers in necessary so to do, appoint for the purpose a Board of inquiry or an Inquiring Officer. (5) The Disciplinary Authority may nominate any person to present the case in support of the charges before the Authority inquiring into charges (hereinafter referred to as the Inquiring Authority). The Government servant may present his case with the assistance of any other Government servant approved by the Disciplinary Authority, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the person nominated by the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. (6) The Inquiring Authority shall, in the course of the inquiry consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. (6) The Inquiring Authority shall, in the course of the inquiry consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. The Government servant shall be entitled to cross-examine witnesses examined in support of the charges and to give evidence in person, and to adduce documentary and oral evidence in his defence. The person presenting the case in support of the charges shall be entitled to cross-examine the Government servant and the witnesses examined in his defence. If the Inquiring Authority declines to examine any witness or to admit any document in evidence on the ground that his evidence or such document is not relevant or material, it shall record its reasons in writing. (7) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefor. (8) The record of the inquiry shall include- (i) The charges framed against the Government servant and the statement of allegations furnished to him under Sub-rule (2); (ii) His written statement of defence, if any; (iii) The oral evidence taken in the course of the inquiry; (v) The documentary evidence considered in the course of the inquiry; (v) The orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority in regard to the inquiry; (vi) A report setting out the findings on each charge and reasons therefor. (9) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge. 4. According to the Petitioner, he was not served the list of documents and the lists of witnesses with the charge-sheet as required under Rule 9(2), without issuance of appointment order of Enquiry Officer the Petitioner was informed in a casual manner to come on 22.8.2001 at 11 a.m. before Dr. B. Barman to make submissions. No assistance of any Government servant was provided to the Petitioner. The inquiry was concluded in a haste manner to honour an order dated 13.2.2002 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 910 of 2002, whereby, the Respondent No. 3 was directed to complete the departmental proceeding within three months. B. Barman to make submissions. No assistance of any Government servant was provided to the Petitioner. The inquiry was concluded in a haste manner to honour an order dated 13.2.2002 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 910 of 2002, whereby, the Respondent No. 3 was directed to complete the departmental proceeding within three months. The Enquiry Officer has not bothered to provide oral hearing or opportunity to examine or cross-examine the witnesses and without fixing date, time and place for finalization of the enquiry and without observing the formalities of principle of natural justice, undated ex-parte inquiry report was submitted as Annexure-17-A, therefore the Petitioner presumes that it was submitted on 22.8.2001 i.e. the day the written submission was submitted by the Petitioner, however, after making observations over the documents without anything, conclusion has been arrived at. Even while making ex-parte inquiry the written statement of Petitioner in reference to Rule 8(ii), oral evidences in reference to Rule 8(iii), documentary evidences in view of Rule 8(iv), finding on each charges and reasons thereof were not dealt with. Similarly, in respect of second show-cause notice regarding incident of 22.5.2001, the enquiry report dated 31.11.2002 was concluded in reference to the charges without fulfilling the procedural formalities as required under Rule 9 of Rules 1964. Mr. Sunil Phukan said to be the sole witness in context of the allegations of taking away the records during inspection was not even examined and cross-examined. No date, time and place was fixed for hearing and no opportunity of hearing was provided before finalization of the report, prima facie the provisions of principle of natural justice have been ignored and the conclusion was arrived at ignoring mandatory provisions of Rule 9 of 'Rules 1964'. 5. No date, time and place was fixed for hearing and no opportunity of hearing was provided before finalization of the report, prima facie the provisions of principle of natural justice have been ignored and the conclusion was arrived at ignoring mandatory provisions of Rule 9 of 'Rules 1964'. 5. Referring the decisions of the Supreme Court in (1993) 4 SCC 727 , Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad and other v. B. Karunakar and other, it has been argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in facts of the present case there is defiance of principles of natural justice and non-supply of inquiry report with proposed punishment to the Petitioner is fatal and is in derogation to the observations of the Supreme Court in K. Karunakar (supra) that the supply of the copy of the enquiry report is an integral part of the penultimate stage of the enquiry before the disciplinary authority considers the material and the report on the proof of the charge and the nature of the punishment to be imposed, Non-compliance is denial of reasonable opportunity, violating Article 311(2) and unfair, unjust and illegal procedure offending Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. 6. According to the Petitioner in view of the observations of this High Court (DB) in 2002 (1) GLT 518 (Manindra Chandra Dhar v. Tripura Road Transport Corporation and Ors.), no inquiry has been made by the Inquiry Officer in consonance to the provisions of Rule 9 of Rules 1964. In respect of articles of charges, the Inquiry Officer could not have recorded any finding against the Petitioner by merely presuming that the allegations are true and concluded. As such holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges thus stands vitiated. So also the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the said finding of the Inquiry Officer stand vitiated for violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 9 of Rules 1964. 7. As such holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges thus stands vitiated. So also the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the said finding of the Inquiry Officer stand vitiated for violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 9 of Rules 1964. 7. In reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1955 SC 271 , Dhirajlal v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay, it has been submitted that in arriving at a decision by the disciplinary authority, it is not possible to know to what extent irrelevant considerations influenced the decision making process and as such the finding of Inquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority would be vitiated because of use of inadmissible and irrelevant materials. Since the disciplinary authority relied upon the inquiry report based on irrelevant considerations, therefore, the observations of Dhirajlal (supra) made in para 5 is squarely applicable in the case in hand. The relevant extract of para 5 is quoted as below: The learned Attorney-General frankly conceded that it could not be denied that to a certain extent the Tribunal had drawn upon its own imagination and had made use of a number of surmises and conjectures in reaching its result. He, however, contended that eliminating the irrelevant material employed by the Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion, there was sufficient material on which the finding of fact could be supported. In our opinion, this contention is not well founded. It is well established that when a Court of fact acts on material, partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the Court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material and thereby an issue of law arises. 8. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent University has submitted though initially, the list of documents and the witnesses to be referred and relied upon were not furnished along with the original charge-sheet, however, subsequently, those records were shown to the Petitioner, inspection of documents were also allowed. 8. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent University has submitted though initially, the list of documents and the witnesses to be referred and relied upon were not furnished along with the original charge-sheet, however, subsequently, those records were shown to the Petitioner, inspection of documents were also allowed. During inspection dated 22.8.2001 the Petitioner was said to have taken one relevant document relating to the undertaking admitting his guilt, however, according to him in the facts and circumstances the Enquiry Officer to the best of his wisdom has arrived at finding by not allowing personal hearing, examining and cross- examination of witnesses. Some deficiencies and non-fulfillment of some procedural formalities shall not vitiated the enquiry report, once the same has been accepted by the disciplinary authority. 9. In S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank 1995 Supp (3) SCC 212, the Supreme Court has set aside the dismissal order passed without giving the employee opportunity of cross-examination. In Punjab National Bank v. AIPNBE Federation AIR 1960 SC 160 , (vide para 66), the Supreme Court has held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in the presence of the charge-sheeted employee and he must be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. The same view was taken in ACC Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1963)II LLJ 396, and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1963)II LLJ 78 (SC). 10. The Respondents, have however, asserted that non-supply of the enquiry officers' report to the Petitioner does not render the disciplinary proceedings invalid unless prejudice is called by non-supply of the report. The Respondents have placed reliance on two cases AIR 1996 SC 1669 paras 24 and 27 (State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma), and 1996 (6) SCC 415 , paras 3 and 4 S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India. The facts of these cases are different where the charged officer has occasion to participate in the proceedings and, thereafter the aspect that the charged officer being prejudiced by non-supply of enquiry report was considered, whereas, in the present case, the facts and circumstances are different and distinguishable. 11. The facts of these cases are different where the charged officer has occasion to participate in the proceedings and, thereafter the aspect that the charged officer being prejudiced by non-supply of enquiry report was considered, whereas, in the present case, the facts and circumstances are different and distinguishable. 11. The Supreme Court in 1997 (2) SLR 378 (Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority and other), has laid down the scope of making judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceeding and in the decision making process and after considering the following decisions (i) Union of India v. H.C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 , (ii) Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 (ii) Administrator of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. H.P. Vora 1993 Supp (1) SCC 551 (iv) State Bank of India v. Samarendera Kishore Endow (1994) 2 SCC 537 , has observed as below: Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold enquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. When the authority accepts the evidence and the conclusion receives support therefrom the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. When the authority accepts the evidence and the conclusion receives support therefrom the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to be facts of that case. 12. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Even in ex-parte proceedings, the inquiry officer should record all available evidence as observed by the Supreme Court in Imperial Tobacco Company v. Workmen AIR 1962 SC 1343. In ex parte proceedings, the Inquiry Officer is not absolved of the responsibility of recording all the evidence on the ground that the employee has failed to be present. It is his duty to record all evidence, oral and documentary, as may be available and finally to base his inference on the evidence so recorded. 13. The concept of ex-parte enquiry where the delinquent official willfully absents himself is well-known in service jurisprudence. Such an enquiry obliges the disciplinary authority to assess or cause to be assessed all available evidence documentary or oral which the Respondents have in support of the charge-sheet and then drawn his objective conclusions about the guilt or otherwise of the delinquent officer. The absence of the delinquent officer enhances the burden on the disciplinary authority of discharging his duty objectively to assess how far the charges against the delinquent Government servant have been established. 14. On perusal of the records, it appears that the charge-sheet was not accompanied by the list of documents and witnesses. The absence of the delinquent officer enhances the burden on the disciplinary authority of discharging his duty objectively to assess how far the charges against the delinquent Government servant have been established. 14. On perusal of the records, it appears that the charge-sheet was not accompanied by the list of documents and witnesses. No Enquiry Officer was said to be appointed to the knowledge of the Petitioner. As required under Rule 9, the oral hearing and examination and cross-examination were not allowed and for finalisation of the enquiry specific date, time and place was not fixed. The entire enquiry was made in a haste manner. The enquiry report is vitiated for observance and non-fulfillment of the mandatory requirements and the procedural formalities as required under rules of Rules 1964. There is apparently defiance of the principle of natural justice. Even before making ex-pane enquiry dated 20.1.2003, neither any document was analyzed nor discussed. The sole eye-witness Shri Sunil Phukan was neither examined nor was allowed to be cross-examined. 15. In these circumstances, first enquiry report enclosed as Annexure-17-A to the writ petition and the second enquiry report dated 22.11.2002 (Annexure-35-A) and the rejection of the appeal dated 24.6.2003 (Annexure-41) enclosed as well as the termination order dated 20.1.2003 (Annexure-37) to the Misc. Case No. 2255 of 2003 are set aside. However, in the interest of justice, the Respondents are at liberty to make a fresh enquiry serving consolidated charge-sheet and to make an enquiry under the provisions of Rule 9 of Rules 1964 and in consonance to the principles of natural justice. 16. The Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service forthwith, however, his further retention in service and payment of back wages/arrears to him shall depend upon the outcome of the fresh inquiry to be made in accordance to the provisions of Rules 1964 which may be concluded with the cooperation of the Petitioner preferably within six months. 17. In view of the above observations the writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost. Petition allowed.