Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER has sought following reliefs in this petition : (a) Command the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce entire records of the disciplinary enquiry proceedings against the petitioner for perusal of the Court; and (b) On perusal of the records above said, may be pleased to quash Annexures P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8; and (c) To direct the respondents to pay full back wages for the period of suspension alongwith interest at the prevailing bank rate of interest, i. e. , 18% per annum; and (d) To pass such other order as may be found suitable in the circumstances of the case; and (e) To direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take suitable criminal proceedings against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for fabricating false evidence in order to harass the petitioner and to award damages for agony caused to the petitioner by them. ( 2. ) THE petitioner has challenged orders : Annexure P-5, dated 11-5-1992, by which the Disciplinary Authority has punished the petitioner in a departmental enquiry by withholding 3 increments with cumulative effect, Annexure P-6, dated 11 -5-1992 by which the Disciplinary Authority has directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as absent from the duty, Annexure P-7, dated 16-7-1992, by which the respondent No. 1 has informed to the petitioner that appeal filed by the petitioner against the order Annexure P-5 was partly allowed and the punishment has been reduced from withholding of 3 increments with cumulative effect to withholding 2 increments with cumulative effect and rest order of the Disciplinary Authority confirmed and order Annexure P-8, dated 3-4-1993, by which the respondent No. 1 has informed that petitioners period of suspension has been treated as absent from the duty, so the petitioner is not entitled for any subsistence allowance, revision of salary, daily allowance, medical expenses and petitioner can not be supplied copy of the appellate decision. ( 3. ) THE aforesaid orders have been assailed by the petitioner on following grounds : (1) That the departmental enquiry is vitiated on following grounds : (a) that one witness S. C. Jain was examined by the enquiry officer, who was not named in the list of witnesses Annexure P-10 and all of a sudden he was produced on 14-6-1991. ) THE aforesaid orders have been assailed by the petitioner on following grounds : (1) That the departmental enquiry is vitiated on following grounds : (a) that one witness S. C. Jain was examined by the enquiry officer, who was not named in the list of witnesses Annexure P-10 and all of a sudden he was produced on 14-6-1991. The petitioner submitted that this witness was not named in the witness list and he may be allowed some time to examine the documents in respect of said witness and to cross examine him, but the said prayer was turned down and he was examined and petitioner was not permitted to cross examine the witness though it was protested by the petitioner before the cross examination. (b) that the enquiry officer directed petitioner to examine petitioners witness after completion of evidence on each charge. Petitioner examined all his witnesses after completion of prosecution ease, but the petitioners evidence has not been considered on the ground that petitioner examined his witnesses after completion of evidence on 3rd charge. (c) that the Enquiry Officer Ravi Kant Saraf was prejudiced with the petitioner as he was the officer of same cadre of which the petitioner was and looking to the merits of petitioner he was apprehending that petitioner may supersede him in promotion. (2) That the period of suspension can not be treated as absence from the duty, the rules does not provide such and as per instructions of respondent/bank, the period of suspension can be treated as on duty, on leave or not spent on duty and there is no such provision that the aforesaid period shall be treated as absent from duty. He has placed reliance to a decision of this Court in W. P. No. 3692/1990, Mahesh Kumar Kanskar v. Mandla Balaghat Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Mandla and Ors. , decided on 20-11-2001 [2002 (2) M. P. H. T. 200], in which it is held that the period of suspension can not be treated as absent from duty. It is submitted that the entire enquiry proceedings be quashed and petitioner be exonerated from all the charges. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for respondents opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted : (i) that the statement of S. C. Jain was necessary in the case. It is submitted that the entire enquiry proceedings be quashed and petitioner be exonerated from all the charges. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for respondents opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted : (i) that the statement of S. C. Jain was necessary in the case. In fact he is the person who submitted his joining on 17-4-1989 at Village Chandpur where the petitioner was not found and only a part time Farrash was present for cleaning the Bank and the Bank was closed. The witness was examined in the presence of petitioner and if petitioner was not permitted to cross examine the witness, no prejudice is caused to him. (ii) that the Enquiry Officer has rightly adopted the procedure to find out truth in respect of each and every charge separately so he opted method of recording evidence on each charge. The petitioner ought to have cooperated with the Enquiry Officer. As the petitioner has produced evidence after completion of evidence on 3rd charge, then the Disciplinary Authority has rightly ignored the aforesaid evidence, which was not produced as per the direction of Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer Ravi Kant Saraf was Senior Officer and was empowered to hold such enquiry. Petitioner has not raised such an objection at the time of appointment of said officer who proceeded with the enquiry. On the principles of acquiescence, the petitioner can not object the enquiry at this stage. Under Regulation 13 (4) the period of suspension can be treated as absent from duty and the Disciplinary Authority has rightly passed such an order. It is submitted that the closure of branch of the Bank is serious matter, in which the Appellate Authority took a very lenient view and this petition may be dismissed. ( 5. ) TO appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, the facts of the case may be seen. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet Annexure P-1, by which 3 charges were imposed on the petitioner. All relates to closure of Chandpur Branch of the respondent/bank on 17-4-1989. The petitioner denied the charges. Thereafter vide order Annexure P-2, dated 15-11-1989 Ravi Kant Saraf was appointed as Enquiry Officer and R. K. Jain was appointed as Presenting Officer. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Along with the charge-sheet a list of witnesses was also furnished to the petitioner, which is Annexure P-10. The petitioner denied the charges. Thereafter vide order Annexure P-2, dated 15-11-1989 Ravi Kant Saraf was appointed as Enquiry Officer and R. K. Jain was appointed as Presenting Officer. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Along with the charge-sheet a list of witnesses was also furnished to the petitioner, which is Annexure P-10. This list contains names of 15 witnesses including documentary evidence, but name of S. C. Jain is not appearing in the said list. On 14-6-1991 the Enquiry Officer recorded evidence and insisted petitioner to produce his evidence after completion of evidence on each charge. He submitted report Annexure P-5 in which he found that all the charges are proved against the petitioner. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed order Annexure P-5 imposing the aforesaid penalty. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed in part in respect of punishment, but copy of the decision of appeal was not supplied to the petitioner and a regret in this regard was communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure P-8, dated 3-4-1993. ( 6. ) TO appreciate the rival contention of the parties, first point which is to be considered is non affording proper opportunity of cross-examination on witness S. C. Jain. It is not in dispute that the name of S. C. Jain is not appearing in the list of witnesses. He was produced by the Presenting Officer in the enquiry on 14-6-1991. When he was produced, the petitioner immediately raised objection that his name is not appearing in the list of witnesses and he has not been supplied the documents relating to the witnesses and he is entitled for an adjournment to cross examine the witness. The Presenting Officer submitted that the documents in respect of S. C. Jain has already been furnished and another witness Shri Nagpure has stated that S. C. Jain appeared in the Branch for submitting his joining report and this fact is within the knowledge of petitioner. The Enquiry Officer sustained the objection of enquiry officer and petitioner was asked to cross examine, petitioner again requested the Enquiry Officer that he is unable to cross examine the witness and he will require 10 documents for cross-examination of witness. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner has not furnished list of aforesaid documents when he was asked to produce the witness, no list was given. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner has not furnished list of aforesaid documents when he was asked to produce the witness, no list was given. But the fact remains that all of a sudden the aforesaid witness was produced, while petitioner was not aware about the production of aforesaid witness. If this witness was so important then why his name was not appearing in the list of witnesses, nothing has been brought on record. Apart from this, petitioner asked for short adjournment for his cross-examination, the Enquiry Officer ought to have adjourned the case though for a short period for the cross-examination of witnesses. In the enquiry petitioner himself was contesting the matter and can not be expected to act as an expert or an Advocate. In the aforesaid circumstances the prayer of petitioner was justified which ought to have been allowed. The Enquiry Officer in the report has relied on the aforesaid witness and his statement has been dealt with in the enquiry report in Para 2 on Page No. 2, which shows that the aforesaid witness was an important witness and the petitioner ought to have been allowed such an opportunity. In the aforesaid circumstances petitioner has been prejudiced by non-adjournment of proceedings for a short time by the Enquiry Officer. ( 7. ) ANOTHER question whether the petitioner had not been afforded due opportunity by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioners witness has been wrongly ignored by the Enquiry Officer ? The Enquiry Officer insisted petitioner to examine the petitioners evidence after the prosecution evidence on each and every charge. There is no procedure for recording the evidence of defence on after completion of evidence on one charge, in piece meal. The entire enquiry is to be conducted as per procedure. As stated hereinabove all the charges relate to the closure of Chandpur Branch of the Bank on 17-4-1989. All the charges relate to each other. In these circumstances, no separate evidence can be produced in respect of each charge by the petitioner. The petitioner sought examination of his witness after closure of evidence on 3rd charge and has produced near about 8 documents, which is apparent from the perusal of Pages 2 and 3 of his statement Annexure P-12, but all the documents have been ignored by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that these documents were produced after completion of evidence on 3rd charge. This has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. As stated hereinabove all the charges relate to closure of Branch on 17-4-1989. In this circumstances, the documents produced by the petitioner ought to have been considered by the Enquiry Officer. ( 8. ) AS the enquiry report is vitiated on aforesaid grounds, the report of Enquiry Officer deserves to be quashed and the matter deserves to be remitted back to the Enquiry Officer for affording opportunity to cross examine witness S. C. Jain and to consider the evidence of petitioner, which was produced by petitioner at the time of his examination which relates to all the charges and thereafter to submit his fresh report to Disciplinary Authority. As the enquiry report itself has been set aside, in this circumstance all the consequential orders also are set aside. ( 9. ) THE contention of petitioner relating to appointment of Enquiry Officer Ravi Kant Saraf who is an officer of same cadre, but senior to the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner had not raised any objection when Shri Ravi Kant Saraf was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Petitioner participated in the enquiry without any objection and had submitted himself to the enquiry and on the principles of acquiescence at this stage the aforesaid objection can not be sustained. The objection in respect of appointment of Ravi Kant Saraf has no force and accordingly it is rejected. ( 10. ) SO far as the contention of petitioner that period of suspension can not be treated as absent from duty is concerned, this Court in Mahesh Kumar Kanskar (supra), has considered this aspect and held that the person under suspension can not be treated to be absent during the period of suspension. In view of aforesaid law laid down by this Court, the contention of petitioner has substance and accordingly it is held that the period of suspension can not be treated as absent from duty. But, now the matter has been remitted back to the Enquiry Officer for deciding afresh after affording aforesaid opportunity, the Disciplinary Authority while considering the report of Enquiry Officer shall take note of aforesaid fact and shall decide the matter, in accordance with law. The Disciplinary Authority while deciding the matter shall also take a decision regarding the period of suspension and question of grant of other ancillary benefits to the petitioner, in accordance with law. ( 11. The Disciplinary Authority while deciding the matter shall also take a decision regarding the period of suspension and question of grant of other ancillary benefits to the petitioner, in accordance with law. ( 11. ) AT this stage learned Counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have denied benefit of revision of pay scale, daily allowance and medical expenses on the ground that petitioners period of suspension was treated as absent from duty and respondents be directed to pay aforesaid to the petitioner. From the perusal of order Annexure P-8, it is apparent that the aforesaid benefits were denied to the petitioner only on the ground that the period of suspension was treated as absent from duty. This order has been set aside by the Court. Now the Disciplinary Authority shall be free to pass afresh order in this regard, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ( 12. ) WITH the aforesaid this petition is allowed, with no order as to costs.