Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant petition has been filed against order dated 25.06.1991 (Annexure-12), whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service in an inquiry initiated pursuant to charge-sheet dated 25/26.03.1987 (Annexure-3). 2. Facts, in brief , are that petitioner initially joined service as LDC on 19.02.1970. He was seasonal employee and called upon to serve only in season of Sugar (December to April) and for rest of period, was paid only retainer ship. In 1975, his status was changed from seasonal to permanent employee. During 1986-87 he was posted as Incharge of Sugar-cane Purchase Centre, Alod and his job was to purchase sugar-cane from various cane growers/farmers and to remit purchased quantity of sugar-cane to the Mills godown after issuance of “purchase slip” stating quantity of purchased sugar-cane and name of grower/farmer who takes it to Accounts Section of the Mill where payment is made to each of growers/farmers for sale of sugar-cane. 3. Petitioner was served with memo dated 02.03.1987 (Annexure-1) with the allegation that while he was working as Centre Incharge, Alod, it was found that upto 17.02.1987, total 4613.50 quintals sugar-cane was purchased while only 4517.45 quintals reached the Mill resulting in total wastage of 96.05 quintals equivalent to 2.09%. It is pertinent to mention that only 2% shortage is permissible, accordingly, petitioner was asked to give his explanation and later on general notice was issued vide order dated 06.04.1988 (Annexure-7) specifying total wastage of 3.78 quintals at the petitioners center, for which he was asked to deposit Rs. 86.94p., which was deposited by him as is evident from Annexure-8. 4. Charge imputed against petitioner was that while he worked as Incharge of center, Alod, purchase slip was not issued to the person concerned, who had handed over/sold sugar-cane to the Mill through Incharge and taking that to be cause of misconduct, he was issued charge-sheet dated 25/26.03.1987 (Annexure-3). In all four charges were imputed and after holding inquiry, Inquiry Officer found charges No. 1 (1) and 2 proved against petitioner and after inquiry report was received, petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 05.09.1990 (Annexure-9) alongwith copy of inquiry report with which disciplinary authority had concurred but mentioned that Inquiry Officer found charge Nos. 1(2) and 2 proved against him whereas inquiry report furnished to him, in fact, exonerates him of charge Nos. 1(2), 3 and 4. 1(2) and 2 proved against him whereas inquiry report furnished to him, in fact, exonerates him of charge Nos. 1(2), 3 and 4. Petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure-10) to notice (Annexure-9) specifically mentioning therein that charge No. 1(2) as referred to in show-cause notice (Annexure-9) has not been found proved by Inquiry Officer and also submitted for charge No. 2 that sugar-cane purchased of 60.74 quintals; for which slip was issued in the name of Nandkishore Bairwa and this happened because no identity cards were issued to sugar-cane growers/farmers and that apart, survey register was not made available to him and he was new person posted at center, Alod, therefore, was not personally knowing farmars/growers but ultimate fact remained that slip was issued in respect of sugar-cane which was actually purchased and whether it was in name of Nand Kishore or some other one, in no manner has affected at least financial interest of the Mill and if grower himself made his own identification in name of Nandkishore, petitioner has no occasion to disbelieve the same. 5. Disciplinary authority finally concurred with finding of guilt recorded by Inquiry Officer and dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 25.06.1991 (Annexure-12). Hence, this petition. 6. Shri Kamlakar Sharma, Counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that in fact charge Nos. 1(1) and 2 were found proved by Inquiry Officer but show-cause notice (Annexure-9) was served upon petitioner alongwith inquiry report, calling upon his explanation against finding recorded by Inquiry Officer about charge Nos. 1(2) and 2; and since as per inquiry report itself , charge No. 1(2), was not found proved by Inquiry Officer, and there was no note of disagreement supplied, petitioner while submitting explanation against show-cause notice (Annexure-9) categorically stated that charge No. 1(2) was not found proved, disciplinary authority has not even applied its mind while examining explanation so also finding recorded by Inquiry Officer, as such very action of respondent in holding petitioner guilty and in passing order (Annexure-12) of dismissal from service smacks of non-application of mind and is violative of principles of natural justice. .7. .7. Counsel further contends that it was not disputed even by respondent that slips were issued after weighing sugar-cane purchased at center Alod under supervision of petitioner and slips issued also tallied to actual sugar-cane purchased from growers; and it was also not the case that there was a demarcated area for one center with regard to purchase of sugar-cane identifying growers/farmers or there was any bar that if one grower who was resident of Barughan could not sell his sugar-cane at Center Alod, and merely because slips were issued in name of a person who might not be resident as referred to therein, which in no manner can be said to be at fault or cause of misconduct in discharge of his duties more so when it was submitted that he was new incumbent while working as Incharge Alod and when there was no list of farmers fro identifying them made available to him-in the absence whereof it was difficult for him to identify as to whether person who named himself is correct or not. .However, ultimate fact remained that the Mill received same quantity of sugar-cane for which slips were issued and payment has been made and to the extent of 2% shortage is permissible but since sugar-cane is purchased at site and then transported to the Mill/factory area causing wastage in transit, and that apart, when he was asked to deposit amount of sugar-cane in excess of permissible wastage, which he had deposited and there was no such charge imputed against him, in such circumstances, very charge imputed against him and holding him guilty in no manner can be said to be act of misconduct, and finding recorded by Inquiry Officer, so also approved by disciplinary authority holding financial loss to respondent Mill, is totally perverse and is in no manner legally sustainable on the basis of material on record. Counsel also contends that despite detailed explanation of petitioner, disciplinary authority has not examined the same and no reasons were assigned in rejecting his explanation and without application of mind, the disciplinary authority concurred with finding of guilt recorded by Inquiry Officer and punished him with penalty of dismissal from service; and such finding is totally perverse and is not legally sustainable. 8. 8. Counsel further contends that petitioner rendered his total satisfactory service of 21 years and there was no adversity ever recorded in his service dossier and for this isolated act which too was not act of misconduct, he was punished with severe penalty of dismissal from service, which is disproportionate to the finding of guilt recorded by authorities. 9. Respondents in their reply have raised certain preliminary objections apart from making submissions on merits but during course of arguments none of them have been referred to and much emphasis was laid only on merits of dispute, alone. It has been inter-alia averred that farmers/growers who come to the Centers and as per survey register maintained, after names being verified, Incharge take sugar-cane and after weighing it, he issues slips to farmers stating quantity of purchased sugar-cane so also name of farmer and based on the slip issued, grower/farmers take payment from the Mill. In case of instant petitioner, sugar-cane was purchased and its slips were issued but it was in name of persons who were not resident of the area and without making verification, purchased slips were issued to persons and by this method, petitioner put financial loss to the Mill and the Inquiry Officer after affording him opportunity of hearing, held him guilty and there was only typographical mistake earlier referred to in show-cause notice (Annexure-9) about mentioning of charge No. 1(1) while in fact once copy of inquiry report, itself , was sent to petitioner, no prejudice has caused to him. 10. Shri J.K. Yadav, Counsel for respondent urged that disciplinary authority has concurred with finding of guilt recorded by Inquiry Officer and has not found merit in explanation of petitioner and no independent reasons are required to be recorded under law while passing order (Annexure-12) inflicting punishment. Counsel also submitted that looking to nature of charges found proved, punishment inflicted upon petitioner certainly commensurate with impugned guilt. In support of his contention, Shri Yadav placed reliance upon Judgment of Apex Court in Ganesh Santaram Sirur vs. State Bank of India, 2005 (1) SCC 13 . 11. I have considered submissions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. In support of his contention, Shri Yadav placed reliance upon Judgment of Apex Court in Ganesh Santaram Sirur vs. State Bank of India, 2005 (1) SCC 13 . 11. I have considered submissions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. This fact remained undisputed that slips issued by Incharge of Center, Alod namely instant petitioner are in consonance with total sugar-cane purchased at the center and transported to the Mill and finally respondent Mill made payments to the farmers in respect of sugar-cane purchased at the Center Alod and received at the Mill; therefore, no material otherwise has been placed on record which may at all justify any financial or other nature of loss caused to the Mill on account of slips issued from the center Alod. There is nothing on record put forward by respondent which may justify that if farmer “X” has sold his sugar-cane in name of “Y” for his own good reasons, and slip has been issued at the center of the Mill on the basis of name disclosed by him for quantity of sugar-cane purchased, in what manner, such slips can be said to be forged. If at all farmer who has sold him sugar-cane and slip is issued in the name of some one else, there can be dispute as to who is actual person to whom payment is required to be made but that is not the case here and despite question put to Counsel for respondent Mill, he was unable to justify as to how slip issued to the farmer, which tally with sugar-cane purchased at the Centre, Alod and merely because he has not disclosed his correct name while handing over and selling sugar-cane, in what manner it can be said to have issued forged slip and if at all it be so, how financial or any other loss of any nature has been caused to the Mill. .12. After inquiry report was furnished alongwith show-cause notice (Annexure-9) to petitioner, it was specifically observed by disciplinary authority that it agreed with finding recorded by Inquiry Officer whereby charge Nos. .12. After inquiry report was furnished alongwith show-cause notice (Annexure-9) to petitioner, it was specifically observed by disciplinary authority that it agreed with finding recorded by Inquiry Officer whereby charge Nos. 1 and 2 have been found proved against him and his explanation was .called for and in his explanation (Annexure-10), petitioner in Para 1 specifically stated that charge No. 1(2) has not been found proved as referred to in inquiry report, itself and reply also; and detailed explanation for charge No. 2 has also been submitted but disciplinary authority still has not examined the same and recorded finding that he concurred with finding recorded by inquiry for charge Nos. 1(2) and 2 which stand finally proved against him and without taking note of his explanation and without assigning reasons after accepting finding of guilt, passed order of dismissal from service. Explanation furnished by Counsel for respondent that it was typographical error, in my opinion, is an after thought because when disciplinary authority has specifically referred to for charge No. 1(2) while issuing show-cause notice (Annexure-9) and despite justification referred to by petitioner in his explanation (Annexure-10) in Para 1, itself , still the same was not considered and again the authority reiterated by referring to same charge No. 1(2) as proved while accepting finding and the fact is that Inquiry Officer has not found charge No. 1(2) proved against petitioner and no explanation was called of delinquent for charge No. 1(1), where finding of guilt was recorded against him by Inquiry Officer and not affirmed by disciplinary authority, while issuing show-cause notice, and without explanation thereto, held him guilty, which in my opinion, holding petitioner guilty for charge No. 1(1) on the basis of inquiry report was an after thought and impugned action was without application of mind while holding guilty and inflicting impugned punishment. 13. As per charge Nos. 13. As per charge Nos. 1(1) and 2, allegation against petitioner was that slips were issued in name of Harchand and Nand Kishore for quantity of sugar-cane of 42.97 and 60.74 quintals, for which finding recorded by Inquiry Officer in report (Annexure R-6) was that it was Harchand S/o Bhanwarlal in whose name slip of purchased sugar-cane was issued while in fact it was Babulal who brought sugar-cane for sale; and their statements (Annexures R-4 and R-7) were recorded in course of inquiry wherein only justification put forward in evidence by Babulal is that when he came to Center Alod, he was asked that if he was inclined to sell sugar-cane he may bring person who is resident of the area and to sorting his problem he mentioned name of Nand Kishore. Hence, it is for the farmer who made reference at the time when sugar-cane was being sold at the center and when petitioner had come out with specific explanation that list of farmers was not made available to him and he was new incumbent at the center Alod, he was not knowing farmers personally and no identification cards were issued to farmers, in such circumstances, whatever reference was made by incumbent concerned for selling sugar-cane at the center, slip was issued as per name disclosed by such farmers. Disciplinary authority failed to consider explanation of petitioner and no reason whatsoever has been assigned while not accepting his explanation. 14. Charge imputed against petitioner was about issuance of slip to the farmers who had not actually sold sugar-cane, causing financial loss to the Mill. But there was no material on record put forward by respondent before Inquiry Officer or disciplinary authority or even before this Court to justify as to in what manner financial loss of any nature has been caused merely because slips were issued in a name of person who according to them was not actual farmer having come to Center Alod for selling his produce in the absence whereof , very finding recorded by Inquiry Officer and affirmed by disciplinary authority of causing financial loss under charge No. 2 in my opinion, is totally perverse and not supported by material on record. .15. I find substance in submission of Counsel for petitioner that after explanation submitted, disciplinary authority was under obligation to examine the same and to record its reasons in facts of instant case. .15. I find substance in submission of Counsel for petitioner that after explanation submitted, disciplinary authority was under obligation to examine the same and to record its reasons in facts of instant case. After concurring with inquiry report, it was supplied alongwith notice to the delinquent, and he was called upon for his explanation, it certainly requires independent application of mind for disciplinary authority to examine as to how for explanation furnished is justiciable in facts and circumstances in the absence of which, calling explanation from delinquent, in my opinion, will remain mere empty formality which can never be the intention for complying with principles of natural justice particularly when he came out with justification that he was new incumbent at Center, Alod, no identity cards and list of members/residents of Gram Mundwa as per survey register were made available at Centre, Alod and that apart, the fact that when total purchase made at Center, Alod during the period of petitioner, tallied with slips issued and 2% wastage is permissible and for rest of deficiency he deposited requisite amount asked for, in such circumstances, it was incumbent upon disciplinary authority to independently examine his justification furnished qua finding recorded by Inquiry Officer but without taking note of the same, disciplinary authority still recorded finding that charge No. 1(2) alongwith charge No. 2 were found proved against him which is not even factually .correct, in such facts situation, in my opinion, premise on which disciplinary authority had proceeded in examining record of inquiry and recorded finding of guilty, is not supported by material on record and is totally perverse and based on such finding, order of impugned punishment inflicted upon is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 10.16. Judgment on which Counsel for respondent placed reliance, is of no assistance for the reason that it was a case where writ petitioner while working as Branch Manager, sanctioned loan to his own wife, which was not at all permissible in terms of Rule 34(3) of SBI (Supervising Staff) Service, Rules, which clearly provides that no employee shall grant on behalf of the State Bank any loan or advance to himself or his spouse, and since writ petitioner had deceitful sanctioned loan to his wife, which was found proved by Inquiry Officer and approved by disciplinary authority, which was considered a gross misconduct committed under Rules. 117. 117. In instant case, in my opinion, act of imputed misconduct cannot said to be deceitful because slips issued in relation to sugar-cane purchased and payments whereof were required to be made accordingly by Accounts Section of respondent Mill and nothing has been placed on record which establish contrary if grower is not resident of place “X” which if does not fall within Center Alod, he cannot be permitted to sell his sugar-cane at the concerned Center in the absence whereof , grower/farmer if has sold sugar-cane at the Center Alod on the prices fixed, this action in no manner can be said to be deceiving the authority and by such act he was not otherwise personally benefited or it has caused any kind of financial loss to the Mill or to any other authority. 118. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. Order of impugned punishment (Annexure-12) dated 25.06.1991 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner will be entitled to consequential benefits. No costs.