Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. When the present writ application was filed in the year 2001, the petitioner had challenged the suspension order dated 23.6.2001 since the matter remained pending the respondent Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board) thereafter conducted a departmental enquiry and by virtue of findings of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. This order came to be passed on 26.9.2001. The petitioner thereafter filed an I.A. No. 4797 of 2001 challenging the same said order of dismissal which is Annexure-8 to the writ application. The case is being heard only now. 3. The only charge against the petitioner is that while on a routine inspection being conducted by the Secretary of the Board, he found the petitioner taking help from one Shri Rupesh Kumar Aman, an outsider, in maintaining the account records. This was considered to be highly objectionable by the respondents keeping in mind the sensitivity and confidentiality, as submitted at the bar. The petitioner was issued a show-cause to which he replied. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted and it is said that the petitioner did accept that looking at the work load he was trying to take some help but the person in queston was not an outsider since he was supposed to be working on daily wages within the Board. 4. Besides this departmental proceeding, it may also be noted that for the same incidence a first information report was lodged and the petitioner had to obtain bail which was allowed for the same event. The criminal case is not an issue here, we are concerned about departmental enquiry. 5. The contention of the petitioner at the outset is two fold, number one, that since the respondent authorities did not furnish the necessary enquiry report to him, all the consequential action which has been taken against him has came to a naught because the basic principle of violation of natural justice comes into play. He submits that it is a well accepted and laid down by the various Courts that non-supply of enquiry report is fatal to such proceeding. He submits that it is a well accepted and laid down by the various Courts that non-supply of enquiry report is fatal to such proceeding. The second limb of the argument of the petitioner is that the order of dismissal passed against him is so shocking to the conscience that the action by itself amounts to an arbitrary decision violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since proportionality in punishment has come to be accepted by the Indian Courts to be a ground for challenge, therefore, prima facie the order of punishment being excessive and harsh is good enough for interference by the Court. 6. Learnes counsel for the respondents made his submissions with regard to the above two contentions in the following manner. In so far as non-furnishing of the enquiry report is concerned, he states that in the counter affidavit specially paragraph 8 they have taken a- stand that the petitioner was allowed to peruse/given an opportunity to peruse the enquiry report that was enough for the purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, interjected that this is an afterthought and no evidence of any kind has been produced that even this bare minimum formality was also undertaken. In so far as the second issue of proportionality of punishment is concerned he submits that this is a matter which falls with the domain of the disciplinary authority and they are the fittest judge of such decision making process. They while considering the deviant behaviour of the petitioner came to the conclusion that dismissal from service was the only option that was available with them. 7. From what has been discussed above the stand taken by the respondents in the present case do not fall within the accepted norms of decision making at the level of the disciplinary authority. The stand which has been taken by them that the petitioner was given an opportunity to peruse the enquiry report, in the opiniion of this Court, may not be enough to meet the requirements of law. There is no. explanation also given in the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, as to why they wanted to hold back the enquiry report from the petitioner dependent on which the vital decision of imposition of punishment was awaiting. There is no. explanation also given in the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, as to why they wanted to hold back the enquiry report from the petitioner dependent on which the vital decision of imposition of punishment was awaiting. In so far as the second contention of the punishment being too harsh is concerned, there is no indication in the record or the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the petitoner had any dubious service record. The petitioner has been in service of the respondents for more than 31 years and when he was dismissed from service he was only 3-4 years away from retirement. Even if the fact of guilt on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, based on the enquiry report, the question arise whether the conduct or the deviant behaviour of the petitioner was of such a high order that at the fag end of his carrier he could be dismissed from service and denied all the benefits which accrues to an employee after a long period of service and that too for an offence of taking help from an outsider in maintenance of accounts as has been alleged against him. This may not be a case where strictly speaking the service could be outsourced to any individual but surely it is not a case where the authorities ought to have taken the harshest decision of dismissal against an emplyee and that too at the fag end of his career. 8. Looking at the nature of allegation and the circumstances explained this Court is of the opinion that the punishment so imposed against the petitioner is far excessive and harsh and thereby violates the doctrine of proportionality. In view of the factual and legal discussions made in this order above, this Court has no option but to accept the contentions of the petitioner on both the counts and accordingly the order contained in Annexure-8 dated 26.9.2001 is hereby set aside. I have been informed that even if the petitioner would have continued in service he would have superannuated on 31.1.2005, therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner is going to be put back in his job. The maximum which can happen is that he would be entitled to his salary and other benefits which a retired government servant would have got in normal circumstances. The maximum which can happen is that he would be entitled to his salary and other benefits which a retired government servant would have got in normal circumstances. In view of quashing of Annexure-8 petitioner would be deemed to have continued in service and would retire on the date of his superannuation. Needles to say that the petitioner shall be entitled to all the benefits of salary and other allowance as if the order of termination had not intervened. This writ application is accordingly allowed.