Judgment :- (1). WAY back in the year 1973, to be precise on 6th June, 1973, the writ petitioner first joined the West Bengal State Electricity Board (Board in short)in its Kharagpur Branch, as an assistant and since then had been posted as "assistant" in different places. Eventually, the petitioner became a permanent employee of the Board and continued to serve as an assistant as before. The case of the petitioner is that he became a victim of acute depression and as such was unable to work and to attend his office since 12th October 1992 till 13th August, 1997. For this long period he had to undergo treatment and the case of his mental depression and consequent disability on his part to attend his office was duly certified by the Doctor who treated him, namely, one Dr. S. Chakraborty who the petitioner has described in paragraph 2 of the petition as "mental heart specialist". For the sake of convenience the text of the certificate issued by Dr. Chakraborty is set out below: "certified that Sri Dilip Kumar Chakraborty attached to Kamarpukur Group of Electric Supply W. B. S. E. B. , resident of Vill.- Malancha, P. O.-Rakhajungle, p. S.- Kharagpur, Dist. Midnapore (Paschim) was under my treatment from 12. 10. 1992 to 23. 8. 1997 and was suffering from mental depression. He is now cured and fit to resume his duties, but his disease may relapse if he is given hard and laborious duty. His proper treatment and care is needed for which his service may be utilised near about his residence. " (2). DURING the illness of the petitioner the wife of the petitioner first wrote to the Station Superintendent of the Board, at Kamarpukur, in the district of hooghly on 16 February, 1993 that her husband Dilip Kr. Chakraborty was not behaving with her and her two daughters in a normal way. She consulted with a Doctor in this connection who intimated that her husband not physically fit and mentally alert to perform any official duty. Her husband was not, therefore, in a position to join the office due to his mental disability. On the above basis the wife requested the Station Superintendent "to take a considered view in this regard" till her husbands recovery. (3). Her husband was not, therefore, in a position to join the office due to his mental disability. On the above basis the wife requested the Station Superintendent "to take a considered view in this regard" till her husbands recovery. (3). THE wife wrote yet another letter to the Divisional Engineer, Serampore, in the district of Hooghly on 1st June, 1993 where the wife of the petitioner again said that her husband was suffering from mental depression since 12th October, 1992. The husband was advised by the Doctor to take rest and not to attend the office, then she wrote as follows: "in the present situation I am hardly managing my family with great difficulties and counting days of sorrow and despair of my life. I, therefore, earnestly pray to your Lordship that you will be kind enough to make necessary arrangements to offer medical assistance for my ailing husband. Yours faithfully, [krishna Chakraborty]" (4). BOTH the above letters are annexed to the writ petition and appearing respectively at pages 19 and 20 thereof. I, on my part, have no hesitation to hold that these two letters were, in fact, duly received by the Board or rather by the officers of the Board concerned and the Board or rather the concerned respondents herein, have not denied the receipt of the above two letters hi due course in their affidavit-in-opposition either. However, on 20th November, 1995, the Board the service of the writ petitioner with effect from 12th October, 1994. The text of the under of termination for the sake of convenience and proper appreciation of the merits of the petitioners case is set out below: "office Order No. C/ir/nt/148 Dated: 20/11/1995 the services of Shri Dilip Kumar Chakraborty, Assistant, last attached to kamarpukur Group Electric Supply under Serampore (Dist.) Division, WBSEB, are hereby terminated w. e. f. 12. 10. 94 (F. N.), consequent upon his continuous absence from duty exceeding the prescribed maximum limit, of 2 (two) years since 12. 10. 92 (F. N.) in terms of regulation 33-1 (iii) of the W. B. S. E. B. Employees Service Regulations. (N. C. Das) Chief Personnel Manager. " (5). NEEDLESS to mention, the termination of the petitioners service was brought about by the above order of the Board without holding any inquiry whatsoever and without giving the petitioner even the minimum opportunity of hearing. (6). (N. C. Das) Chief Personnel Manager. " (5). NEEDLESS to mention, the termination of the petitioners service was brought about by the above order of the Board without holding any inquiry whatsoever and without giving the petitioner even the minimum opportunity of hearing. (6). ON 24th August, 1997 the petitioner by a representation to the Chief personnel Manager of the Board requested withdrawal of the above order of termination of his service and sought for reinstatement. The petitioner on 21stoctober, 1997 was asked by the Senior Personnel Administrative Officer of the Board to furnish the copies of the communication made by the petitioner or his wife or by other member of the petitioners family to the Board intimating the Board of the petitioners illness. The petitioner thereafter, however, submitted the necessary documents as sought for by the Personnel and administrative Officer. Since the representation of the petitioner to the Board did not bring about any fruitful result, in spite of submission of the necessary documents as sought for by the Personnel and Administrative Officer, the writ petitioner had to approach the General Secretary of the State Committee of the Board and the secretary having been satisfied with the genuineness of the case of the writ petitioner approached the Senior Personnel and Administrative Officer by his letter dated 16th March, 1998 to consider the case of reinstatement of the petitioner upon recovation of the order of termination issued against the petitioner. The Secretary in his letter said that the family of the petitioner was starving and living in a precarious condition. (7). WHEN the earlier representation of the petitioner and the letter of the secretary dated 16th March, 1998 proved practically nothing the writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for the first time in the year 1999 by moving a writ petition. W. P. No. 9989 (W) of 1999, and on 18th June, 2002 after expiry of more than two years from the initiation of the writ proceeding the said order of termination dated 20th November, 1995 was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be treated as in "deemed suspension" and the Board was directed to initiate disciplinary proceeding in accordance with the relevant rules, meaning thereby the West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees service Regulations. (8). THE said order dated 18th June, 2002 of Justice Asim Kr. (8). THE said order dated 18th June, 2002 of Justice Asim Kr. Banerjee has, in my opinion, a very important hearing upon the merits of this writ petition. The said order is set out below: "the writ petitioner was absent for about two years. He was summarily dismissed by the respondent authority by an order dated 20th November, 1995 appearing at page 13 of the writ petition by virtue of Rule 33 (1) (III) of the West Bengal Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations. The relevant rule under which the writ petitioner was terminated is quoted as follows: 33. Unless otherwise specified in the appointment order in any particular case, the service of a permanent employee of the Board may be terminated without notice: (iii) If he remains absent from duty, oil leave or otherwise, for a continuous period exceeding 2 years. ". "in my view, the said rule is contrary to the provision of our Constitution and is violative of the principle of natural justice guaranteed to the writ petitioner by the Constitution. Hence, the order of termination appearing at page 13 of the writ petition is quashed and set aside. The writ petitioner be treated as in deemed suspension and be proceeded departmentally in accordance with the relevant rules pertaining to the disciplinary proceeding". (9). ALTHOUGH it was specifically directed in the above order that the disciplinary proceeding must be completed within a period of three months from the date of the order, it took the Board little less two months to issue the charge-sheet against the petitioner. The charges as framed against the petitioner are set out below: "article OF CHARGES whereas Shridilip Kr. Chakraborty during his incumbency at Kamarpukur gr. Elec. Supply from 01. 07. 92 was absenting from duty without intimation from 12. 10. 92, he was advised by his controlling officer to resume duty vide office Memo. No. SRPD/estb. /conf. /2033 dated: 07. 05. 93 followed by series of letters bearing Memo. No. SRPD/estb. /conf. /87 dated: 28. 7. 94 and SRPD/ estb. /con. /l04 dated: 26. 9. 94. AND whereas on receipt of memo, of the controlling officer in question, Shri chakraborty did not resume duty at Kamarpukur Gr. E/s. He had continued absence with effect from 12. 10. 92 till issuance of order of termination of his service by the Board under Memo. No. C/ir/nt/148 dated: 20. 01. 95. /con. /l04 dated: 26. 9. 94. AND whereas on receipt of memo, of the controlling officer in question, Shri chakraborty did not resume duty at Kamarpukur Gr. E/s. He had continued absence with effect from 12. 10. 92 till issuance of order of termination of his service by the Board under Memo. No. C/ir/nt/148 dated: 20. 01. 95. AND whereas after issuance of termination order, Shri Chakraborty had pleaded his absence from duty on medical ground and accordingly he was advised to appear before WBSEBs Medical Board on 24. 9. 98 when the Medical Board on thorough examination has observed that the prolonged absence of Shri chakraborty cannot be considered to be on the ground of psychosis as the delinquent employee was failed to produce any certificate or documents for his illness from any qualified psychiatrist. AND whereas such absence from duty without intimation exceeding 2 (two) years is a clear violation of Regulations 59,60,61 (a), (b) and (c) of W. B. S. E. B. E. S. R. AND thus it appears that Shri Dilip Kr. Chakraborty, Assistant, Kamarpukur gr. E/s (under suspension) has wilfully and deliberately violated the rules of the Board as noted above by absenting himself from duty without intimation to his Controlling Officer w. e. f. 12. 10. 92 and if those misconduct noted above are proved same shall call for severe punishment as per regulation 33 (1) (iii) of W. B. S. E. B. E. S. R. " (10). IN issuing the charge-sheet the disciplinary authority (A. K. Pal, Chief personnel Manager) had, in my opinion, pre-judged the issue as in the last paragraph of article of charges he stated that "shri Dilip Kr. Chakraborty (the petitioner), Assistant, Kamarpukur Gr. E/s (under suspension) has wilfully and deliberately violated the rules of the Board as noted above by absenting himself from duty without intimation to his Controlling Officer. . . . . " and then observed "if those misconduct noted above are proved same shall call for severe punishment as per Regulation 33 (l) (iii) of W. B. S. E. B. E. S. R. " (11). THE last paragraph of article of charges against the petitioner (quoted above) promptly reminds me the observations of His Lordship Justice G. N. Roy (as His Lordship then was) in S. C. Das vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. THE last paragraph of article of charges against the petitioner (quoted above) promptly reminds me the observations of His Lordship Justice G. N. Roy (as His Lordship then was) in S. C. Das vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. , reported in 86 CWN 232 when His Lordship in dealing with the validity of the charge-sheet in question was pleased to observe: whether a charge-sheet has been issued with a closed mind or not cannot always be decided by a mere reference to the charge-sheet itself. The language used in the charge-sheet certainly renders a very important indication in the matter but other attending circumstances may at times throw light on the real intent and import of the charge-sheet. It is true that the charges levelled against a delinquent officer must be clear and unambiguous, but at the same time the charge-sheet should not be issued with a biased and closed mind. The real purpose of initiating a disciplinary proceeding is to enquire as to whether the facts, prima facie ascertained against a delinquent officer, are correct or not. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding cannot be to cause a secret enquiry against a delinquent officer and to form a positive and firm view about his complicity in the alleged misconduct and thereafter to give him an opportunity to dispel the conclusion already drawn against him. If therefore from the attending circumstances and also from the language of the charge-sheet, it appears that the disciplinary authority has really drawn a positive conclusion against a delinquent officer and thereafter has started a disciplinary proceeding by issuing a charge-sheet only to afford him an opportunity to dispel the conclusion drawn against him then such disciplinary proceeding must be held to be bad, being vitiated by bias and a closed mind and having been all intents and purpose, started to complete a formality in law. " (12). IN S. C. Das (supra), the Court found from the language of the charge-sheet that the same was issued clearly alleging that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offences and the Court found further that the disciplinary authority did not form its opinion but was influenced by the findings of the Vigilance department and relying on such findings of the said department the charge-sheet was issued clearly indicating that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged misconduct. The Court, therefore, was of the opinion that the charge-sheet was issued with a "closed mind" and as such both the charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceeding initiated on the basis of the said charge-sheet were quashed. Having read the article of charges in the present case, it would be extremely difficult on my part to even suggest that the said charge-sheet was not issued with an absolute closed mind or rather the disciplinary authority before issuing the said charge-sheet already decided that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was nothing but a mere formality or rather a face saving operation. Indeed, the Board on 20th November, 1995 without holding any disciplinary proceeding, without complying with any of the provisions of the Service Regulations terminated the service of the petitioner on the alleged plea of the petitioners continuous absence from duty exceeding maximum limit of two years which order of termination, as aforesaid, was set aside by the said order dated 18th June, 2002 by Justice Asim Kr. Banerjee and it was because of His Lordships specific mandatory order the Board was compelled to hold a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner as directed in the said order. (13). IN such a situation, it would not be improper to presume that the Board framed the charges against the petitioner with a pre-determined mind to inflict the same punishment as it inflicted upon the petitioner before, namely, termination of the petitioners service on the alleged plea of "continuous absence with effect from 12th October, 1992" till the issuance of the order of termination of his service by the Board on 20th November, 1995 (wrongly mentioned in the article of charges as 20th January, 1995 ). (14). ALTHOUGH the Board or rather its disciplinary authority framed the alleged charges against the petitioner but it did not hold disciplinary proceeding and complete the same within a period of three months as directed by the said order dated 18th June, 2002 of this Court. The petitioner also did not receive any subsistence allowance as he was supposed to receive by virtue of the said order dated 18th June, 2002. The petitioner, therefore, had to visit this Court once again with his second writ petition. W. P. No. 14266 (W) of 2002. (15). The petitioner also did not receive any subsistence allowance as he was supposed to receive by virtue of the said order dated 18th June, 2002. The petitioner, therefore, had to visit this Court once again with his second writ petition. W. P. No. 14266 (W) of 2002. (15). APART from praying for a direction upon the respondent for grant of subsistence allowance, the petitioner also pointed out that the disciplinary proceeding was not completed within the period of three months as directed by this Court and on the basis of the earlier order on the first writ petition he was entitled to receive the "full salary" in terms of the said order. The second writ petition of the petitioner was also disposed of by Justice Asim Kr. Banerjee on 30th September, 2002. After recording the submissions on behalf of the Board the following direction was made: "i grant extension of time to the Board to complete the proceeding peremptorily within three months from date. It is made clear that in case the proceeding is not complete within the stipulated period despite petitioners co-operation the petitioner would be automatically entitled to full salary in terms of my earlier order dated 18th June, 2002. The petitioner would be entitled to engage friend to assist him in the proceeding. Such friend must be an employee of the State Electricity Board. Writ petition is disposed of. There would be no order as to costs. " (16). AFTER the disposal of the second writ petition the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Board or its disciplinary authority to inquire into the alleged charges against the petitioner held the proceeding for a few days and, thereafter, made his report. It is the report of the Enquiry Officer which is of immense importance as the Enquiry Officer, I find, at least tried to consider the correctness of the alleged charge or charges against the petitioner after taking into account the relevant factors and after considering the facts as to why the petitioner was unable to serve the Board for such a long period of time (exceeding two years) mentioned in the article of charges. (17). (17). BEFORE the material portions of the enquiry report are set out, it is to be pointed out that the disciplinary authority in imposing the same punishment of termination of the petitioners service said that in imposing such punishment the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The entire report of the Enquiry Officer, read as a whole, in my opinion, goes completely in favour of the writ petitioner but in imposing punishment of termination upon the petitioner the disciplinary authority simply said that as the allegations against the petitioner were proved beyond reasonable doubt the disciplinary authority upon concurrence with the findings of the Enquiry officer decided to terminate the petitioners service. (18). THUS, for the sake of proper appreciation of the findings of the Enquiry officer the material portions of the report are set out in somewhat detail: "points OF LAW BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER: (19). REGULATIONS 33 (l) (iii) of W. B. S. E. B. E. S. R. with respect to charge as referred to by Presenting Officer through written argument dated 8. 11. 02 on record is not materially relevant- since the charge-sheet states in the concluding paragraph that the delinquent would be punishable as per Regulation 33 (1) (iii) but the charge-sheet does not state that he is charged under the above regulation. In fact, Regulation 33 under Chapter- III (General Conditions of Service) deals with termination. The delinquent is booked under Regulation 33 (l) (ii) as per order dated 18. 6. 02 of the Honble High Court of Kolkata. In pursuance of such order the employee need be proceeded with as pre Regulation 33 (l) (ii) read with Chapter IV of W. B. S. E. B. E. S. R. titled as "conduct, Discipline, Punishment and Appeal". Regulation 66 of W. B. S. E. B. E. S. R. is very material where it is categorically stated that "if the suspended employee is found to be guilty he shall be liable to be punished to the extent provided under Regulation 62". (20). I now take up all the charges concurrently (since those are inter-related)for analysis, Sri Chakraborty during his incumbency at Kamarpukur Gr. E/s of W. B. S. E. B. whether had absented himself from duties without intimation from 12. 10. 92 and whether he continued his absence till 20. 1. (20). I now take up all the charges concurrently (since those are inter-related)for analysis, Sri Chakraborty during his incumbency at Kamarpukur Gr. E/s of W. B. S. E. B. whether had absented himself from duties without intimation from 12. 10. 92 and whether he continued his absence till 20. 1. 95 i. e. day when the order for termination of his service was issued. Simultaneously I shall also analyse whether he was advised by his Controlling Officer to resume duty as contained in the charge-sheet. It shall also be analysed as to whether above Act of Sri Chakraborty is violative to Regulations 59, 60, 61 (a), 61 (b), and 61 (c) of w. B. S. E. B. Employees Service Regulations. (21). WITH regard to above charge-sheet for absence from duty Regulations 59,60,61 (a) and 61 (b) are materially relevant. As already pointed above, regulation 61 (a) is relating to misconduct committed by way of resorting to unpunctuality and irregular attendance or absence without permission. Through charge-sheet punctuality is not charged. It is stated through charge-sheet that the employee concerned under suspension committed misconduct of absence from duty without intimation and even failed to resume in spite of repeated letters from his Controlling Officer advising him for resumption of his duties. So, the charge is basically for irregular attendance without intimation whereas regulation 61 (a) so far as absence is concerned says of irregular attendance without permission. (22). THE charged employee during enquiry either through his own testimony or through cross-examination of the management witnesses i. e. P. W.-1, P. W.-11 and P. W.-111 have never put forward any claim that he did not absent himself from duty as charged. (23). THROUGH his documents on record and Exhibits as D-1 to D-7 he had never argued that he did not receive the letters of instructions/advice of the controlling Officer for resumption of duties i. e. Exhibit Nos. P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5. The charged employee stated that he had given due intimation through his wife that he was not physically fit and mentally alert to perform any official duty on 16. 2. 93 and 1. 6. 93 requesting for necessary arrangements to offer medical assistance (Exhibit No. D-l and D-2 ). The charged employee also furnished proof of such letter sent to Sin. Supdt. 2. 93 and 1. 6. 93 requesting for necessary arrangements to offer medical assistance (Exhibit No. D-l and D-2 ). The charged employee also furnished proof of such letter sent to Sin. Supdt. and D. E. by his wife under certificate of posting as on record as Exhibit D-3 and D-l. Besides the above, the charged employee had also submitted Exhibit D-7 i. e. a certificate dated 23.8. 97 of Dr. S. Chakraborty. But so far as the question of absence without intimation is concerned it appears that the prosecution did not question the veracity/ authenticity of proof submitted by the charged employee from Postal Authority i. e. Exhibit D-3 and D4. Therefore, I as Enquiry Officer have reasons to believe that such intimation was sent by the wife of the charged employee under certificate of posting as contended which might be lost and/or misplaced in transit so the employee need by given reasonable benefit of doubt in this regard. So I do not have sufficient material evidence on record to hold him guilty with certainty for non-intimation of reasons for his absence from duty in view of material documents produced by him from Postal Authority. (24). THE prosecution as well as the charged employee heavily relied on the report of the Medical Board dated 24. 9. 98 to further their own points and arguments. The prosecution desired to prove that the charged employee absented himself from duty without sufficient satisfactory reasons for such absence during the period from 12. 10. 92 to 20. 11. 95 while the charged employee argued that he absented from duties with sufficient satisfactory reasons. (25). THE prosecution stated that on examination on 24. 9. 98 it was ascertained that the delinquent was found to be physically fit and mentally alert (reference examination and cross-examination of DW-1 ). It was also stated by DW-1 that doctor with just M. B. B. S Degree is not competent enough for treating a psychiatric having continuous ailment of such long period of about 5 years (Reference examination-in-chief and cross-examination of DW-1 ). But the prosecution did neither refer to any existing rule, nor had submitted any document to this effect. (26). THE prosecution also emphasised that the charged employee was treated only with one anti-depression medicine, which was insignificant in nature for his prolonged treatment (Reference cross-examination of DW-1 on record ). (27). But the prosecution did neither refer to any existing rule, nor had submitted any document to this effect. (26). THE prosecution also emphasised that the charged employee was treated only with one anti-depression medicine, which was insignificant in nature for his prolonged treatment (Reference cross-examination of DW-1 on record ). (27). THE prosecution also submitted through argument that the charged employee could not produce certificates showing his treatment from time to time instead he submitted only one certificate for the entire period of about 5 years (Reference arguments dated 22. 10. 02 and 8. 11. 02 of the Presenting officer ). (28). THE points of argument of the charged official are as hereinbelow: that the certificate of illness dated 23. 8. 97 was of Dr. S. Chakraborty, m. B. B. S. (Exhibit D-7) who was Asstt. Chief Medical Officer of Midnapore district at that material point of time. But he did not submit any material document and evidence in support of his above contention. (29). THAT the delinquent was in acute financial distress for which he co uld not even afford to receive treatment from a psychiatrist/specialist. (30). THAT the Medical Board did not conduct any text physically but reached the conclusion in arbitrary manner. (31). I would like to refer to Appendix-II of WBSEB (Medical Attendance and treatment) Regulations, 1964 which forms part of West Bengal State Electricity board Employees Service Regulations governing the Service conditions of the employees. Regulation 2 (b) of the Regulations states "authorised Medical attendant" Means a Medical Officer of the Board if there is one or in other case, any medical practitioner registered under the Bengal Medical Act of 1914, paschim Banga Ayurvedic System of Medicine Act, 1961, and the West Bengal homeopathic System of Medicine Act, 1963". The prosecution could not produce or even refer to sanction of Regulation which debars an MBBS degree holder from issuing sickness certificate and fitness certificate in respect of an employee suffering from mental sickness as contended by the Medical Board as well as dw-1 and even the Presenting Officer in its argument. So, the question is as to whether the delinquent employee had complied with minimum requirement of law. An employee person is expected to be guided by the advice of a registered medical practitioner which is exactly done in the instant case. So, the question is as to whether the delinquent employee had complied with minimum requirement of law. An employee person is expected to be guided by the advice of a registered medical practitioner which is exactly done in the instant case. The minimum requirement of law as we find from W. B. S. E. B. E. S. R. is that the certificate of sickness from a registered medical practitioner would usually be accepted. So a certificate to that effect from a registered Doctor with MBBS Degree is sufficient as acceptable grounds for absence from duty unless otherwise proved. The DW-1 in his evidence stated that the medical certificate of Dr. S. Chakraborty, Exhibit D-7 to be genuine in nature-not a fake one. The prosecution through evidence on record as well as through arguments did not disclose as to whether the Medical Board of the WBSEB, the report on which the prosecution stands was constituted with any Psychiatrist and Specialist in it. So the report of Medical Board stands on the same footing as that of the certificate/report of the Doctor of the delinquent. (32). THE Medical Board has given its opinion so far as the better treatment is concerned which does not essentially mean that the opinion shall be administratively in conformity with relevant provision of rule of the Board. The Medical Board did not specify that non-consultation of a Psychiatrist was infringement of any particular rule in force or laid down Regulations of w. B. S. E. B. (33). IT is also observed from the report of Medical Board that "from the history and records available Medical Board does not find any rational reasons for his prolonged absence on medical ground since he was not suffering from any form of psychosis. Moreover, he was never examined by a qualified psychiatrist during the whole period of his illness". (34). IN view of the analysis of documents and arguments on record I hold that the charge of failure to produce legally acceptable medical certificate in support of sickness by the charged employee is not proved. The charged employee substantiated clearly that he observed minimum requirement of Rule which is sufficient to accept that he had sufficient reasons for absence from duties. Therefore, to the above extent he has complied with requirement of Regulations 59 and 60 of W. B. S. E. B. E. S. R. (35). The charged employee substantiated clearly that he observed minimum requirement of Rule which is sufficient to accept that he had sufficient reasons for absence from duties. Therefore, to the above extent he has complied with requirement of Regulations 59 and 60 of W. B. S. E. B. E. S. R. (35). THE prosecution has not mentioned anything with regard to charge of misconduct under Regulation 61 (c) of W. B. S. E. B. E. S. R. that what material loss was caused by the employee to the organization. The charge-sheet does not as well certain any specific charge with regard to material loss inflicted caused directly or indirectly by the charged employee. So the charge under Regulation 61 (e) of W. B. S. E. B. E. S. R. is also not proved. " (36). FROM the above findings of the Enquiry Officer, I repeat, I have no doubt that the findings of the Enquiry Officer upon correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Medical Attendance and Treatment Regulations, 1964 had gone entirely in favour of the writ petitioner. The observations of the enquiry Officer in his report in the second paragraph at page 4 thereof "that the charge of irregular attendance i. e. absence from duties with effect from 12. 10. 92 to 20. 11. 95 without permission and without intimation as per regulations 61 (a) and 61 (b) is proved beyond doubt which is also violative to regulations 59 and 60 of the West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees service Regulations are utterly inconsistent and run contrary to his findings made in his Report. The inconsistency and also absurdity in the above observations of the Enquiry Officer in his Report formed the basis of the decision of the disciplinary authority in terminating the service of the petitioner on the ground of the continuous absence of the petitioner exceeding two years without intimation to his employer, the Board. (37). THE Enquiry Officer himself found that the main allegation against the petitioner of continuous absence exceeding two years were never disputed. (37). THE Enquiry Officer himself found that the main allegation against the petitioner of continuous absence exceeding two years were never disputed. Therefore there was nothing to prove beyond reasonable doubt or any doubt as it was and is an admitted position that the writ petitioner was absent for more than two years and as a result of which his service was terminated without any notice to him and the order of termination was set aside by this Court in the earlier writ proceeding as this Court, inter alia, found that the said termination was brought about without complying with the fundamental principles of natural justice as no disciplinary proceeding was held against the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and in quashing the said order of termination this Court termed the said regulation 33 (1) (iii) as unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice. (38). THE only question that was to be decided by the Enquiry Officer was whether the Board was informed by the petitioner or by anybody else on behalf of the petitioner for the petitioners prolonged absence from his duties and the reason and/or reasons for such absence. The Enquiry Officer in no uncertain terms came to a positive finding that the wife of the petitioner by her letters (dated 16th February, 1993 and 1st June, 1993) informed the Board that her husband, namely, the petitioner was suffering from depression and as such was unable to attend office. In fact, the wife of the petitioner earnestly prayed the petitioners employer, namely, the Board by addressing her letter to the divisional Engineer of the Board by calling the Divisional Engineer lordship that you will be kind enough to make necessary arrangements to offer medical assistance for my ailing husband. This is the second letter of the wife of the petitioner, in the first letter the wife even informed that her husbands behaviour with her and two daughters was not "normal" and the Doctor who opined that the husband (the petitioner) was not physically fit and mentally alert to perform any official duty and as such the petitioner was not in a position to attend the office because of his mental disability. (39). (39). THE Enquiry Officer also found upon evidence that such letters were, in fact, received by the Board as the Board was unable to prove that the letters were never sent from the petitioners and intimating or informing the Board of the petitioners illness. The Enquiry Officer, in fact, observed "that the prosecution did not question the veracity/authenticity of proof submitted by the charged employee from postal authority. . . . " (See at page 11 of this judgment ).