Judgment 1. Heard leared counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order of dismissal passed against him which is an order dated 25.4.2003 and is contained in annexure-1 to the writ application. The alternative prayer of the petitioner is that even the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer which is annexure-3 to the writ application deserves to be quashed for the reasons indicated in the writ application. 3. The details of the background under which the impugned orders came to be passed against the petitioner are not required as such. The petitioner had worked as an Assistant Account Officer with the respondents and was last posted at Samastipur. The proceeding was initiated against him for his involvement in the so called black-marketing of certain quantity of wheat while he was posted at Bettiah. Four charges were framed against him and out of four charges the enquiry officer found evidence with regard to charge no. 4 and therefore he was held to be guilty and order of dismissal was passed. 4. The contention of the petitioner at the very out set is that no proper enquiry was conducted against him and, in fact, the so-called evidence which has been used for proving charge no. 4 is concocted piece of evidence if not a obtained one behind his back because the petitioner categorically asserts in his writ application that no oral evidence whatsoever was ever taken in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner much less the one talked about in the order dated 28.11.2002. He states that from a perusal of annexure-A which has been filed by the respondents it would be clear that the proceeding in the departmental enquiry was held on various date. Matter was adjourned time and again to give liberty to the prosecution witnesses to tender their evidence in the matter but on every date no witness turned up to give evidence. On 14.11.2002 the matter was adjourned to 28.11.2002. On 28.11.2002 the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer gave his Haziri but nothing more happened on that date. He asserts that no witness turned up for giving evidence. However he is surprised while perusing annexure-A that the enquiry officer has given a detailed narration of the evidence of one Mr. On 14.11.2002 the matter was adjourned to 28.11.2002. On 28.11.2002 the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer gave his Haziri but nothing more happened on that date. He asserts that no witness turned up for giving evidence. However he is surprised while perusing annexure-A that the enquiry officer has given a detailed narration of the evidence of one Mr. K.V.R Srivastava and so-called cross-examination which the petitioner had carried out against the said witness. 5. On the assertion made by the petitioner as well as on perusal of annexure-A this Court to satisfy itself about the actual state of affairs directed the respondents to produce the original file in question. This Court went through the file and has taken note of the fact on every date on which the enquiry was held as detailed typed out order-sheet along with the date has been recorded. Nothing is recorded in the order-sheet for the proceeding dated 28.11.2002. There is however a detailed typed order on record with date 28.11.2002 recorded in pen on the side of the said order-sheet seperately. Further no evidence is available on record to show the questions were put to the prosecution witness and the answer he gave to the same was recorded anywhere, nor is there any evidence as to the questions put in the cross-examination by the petitioner and the answer given with regard to the same. There is a narration, however there is nothing to corroborate as to from where the narration about the evidence has been obtained as recorded on 28.11.2002. This order does not carry any initial or signature of the petitioner but only of the witness Mr. K.V.R Srivastava. The order reflects that the same was recorded in presence of the petitioner but circumstances from the record do raise a serious doubt whether the so-called witness was at all examined. Even if this is presumed that it was done surely there is no evidence to establish that it was done in presence cf the petitioner giving him fullest opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. The evidence of the prosecution which has been recorded on 28.11.2002 is the basis on which the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty and this has led to serious consequence because he has been dismissed from service. 6. The evidence of the prosecution which has been recorded on 28.11.2002 is the basis on which the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty and this has led to serious consequence because he has been dismissed from service. 6. This Court does find that the contention of the petitioner in this regard is not misplaced because the perusal of the original record does show many incongruities and the same has caused serious doubt whether the proceeding or the evidence which was taken against the petitioner was done in his presence and after giving fullest opportunity to him. If the enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner or in illegal manner and the same has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner then this Court has no opinion but to interfere with the enquiry report as well as the consequential orders passed, based on the said enquiry report. 7. Without making any further comment in the way the enquiry has been carried out, this Court considers it appropriate that both the enquiry report as well as the consequential orders contained in annexure-1 is set aside. The respondent authorities if they so wish and desire to proceed against the petitioner ought to do so by following the rules of natural justice and after giving fullest opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. 8. Just to complete the formality of a enquiry it is not open to an employer to adopt any method or methodology to arrive at a conclusion to the detriment of the employee. This Court accordingly comes to a conclusion that the respondents have erred in way the enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner and therefore, both the enquiry report as well as the order of dismissal contained in annexure-3 and annexure-1 respectively are quashed. 9. Opportunity is given to the respondents to take such steps as they may be so advised to proceed in the matter afresh. 10. This writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above.