Judgment Barin Ghosh, J. 1. An advertisement was published inviting applications for appointment of Junior Engineers. Petitioner responded to the said advertisement, appeared at the written examination and faced the Interview Board. At that time, another advertisement came up. Petitioner also responded to the said advertisement, appeared at the written test and also faced the Interview Board. Subsequent thereto, petitioner obtained success in respect of the application made by him against the first advertisement. Accordingly, on 16th January, 1987, petitioner joined his duties. The application of the petitioner against the second advertisement also succeeded and that also resulted in an offer of employment. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had no knowledge of such offer of employment. 2. It is the contention of the State that the petitioner purported to accept the second offer of employment and gave his joining on 10th June, 1988 before the Chief Engineer and thereupon when he was asked to report to the Executive Engineer, another person claiming to be the petitioner went to the Office of the Executive Engineer with the testimonials of the petitioner, and thereafter started discharging duties representing him as the petitioner since 10th June, 1988. According to the State, this came to light about twelve years later when the Gradation List was prepared. Before the State could catch the person, who was impersonating the petitioner since 10th June, 1988, he evaporated. 3. The petitioner was then put under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceedings and then a chargesheet was issued against him. In the chargesheet, three charges were framed against the petitioner. The first charge was that despite success in respect of his response to the first advertisement and joining his post on the basis of such success, the petitioner appeared at the written test as well as the interview in respect of his response to the second advertisement. The allegations constituting this charge are not correct inasmuch as admittedly petitioner appeared at the written examination as well as the interview in respect of his application made in response to the second advertisement before the offer letter pertaining to his success in respect of his application in response to the first advertisement was issued. The second charge was that either the petitioner worked in two posts or he permitted someone else to impersonates him. The second charge was that either the petitioner worked in two posts or he permitted someone else to impersonates him. In respect of this charge, it appears, that the joining letters were produced before the Enquiry Officer. It does not appear that any other documentary or oral evidence was tendered before the Enquiry Officer pertaining to this charge. The Enquiry Officer held that the charge stands peres simply because the handwritings appearing on the joining letters appeared to be of the same person, as opined by him. Therefore, if the opinion of the Enquiry Officer is accepted, what has come on record is that the joining report was given by one person at two different places on two several dates, but that would not prove the second charge unless some more evidence was brought on record to show that on the basis of the second joining letter, either the petitioner or someone else impersonating the petitioner had served at the second place. With that, according to my wisdom, it was also required to bring on record that the petitioner had at least some role to play in the matter of permitting that other person to work in place of the petitioner since 10th June, 1988, and, as aforesaid, the same could be easily proved, if the Executive Engineer before whoa that person produced, allegedly, the testimonials of the petitioner had deposed. The third charge was that before the impersonator could be apprehended, the petitioner caused him to be removed along with the service book and relevant documents in order to remove evidence. Before the Enquiry Officer, no witness stated that the service book is not available. 4. I think, therefore, it would be inappropriate to hold the petitioner guilty of any of those charges on the basis of scanty materials, as were brought on record. The matter must, therefore, go back to the enquiry stage when the prosecution must try to prove Charges No. 2 & 3 for it would not be possible for them to prove Charge No. 1 in view of what has been stated above. 5. Inasmuch as the petitioner has been dismissed by the impugned order, he should be treated to be under suspension until the matter is finally concluded and should be paid subsistence allowance from now onwards. 6. 5. Inasmuch as the petitioner has been dismissed by the impugned order, he should be treated to be under suspension until the matter is finally concluded and should be paid subsistence allowance from now onwards. 6. In those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by quashing the order of the disciplinary authority terminating the services of the petitioner as well as the enquiry report. Let the matter be re-enquired and let proper evidence be brought on the records of enquiry to substantiate Charges No. 2 & 3. The petitioner shall be treated as on suspension, who shall be entitled to subsistence allowance for the period he shall remain under suspension excluding the period from the date he was terminated until yesterday. 7. In the event, the petitioner is absolved of the charges, it shall be deeded that the petitioner was on service and snail be paid his salaries for the entire period he remained under suspension including the period from the date of termination of his service until yesterday less subsistence allowance already paid to him, as is the mandate of the Bihar Service Code. 8. This disposes of the writ petition.