JUDGMENT P.K. Chattopadhyay, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein assailing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the said learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal passed against the writ petitioner employee and allowed the writ petition upon holding that the said writ petitioner should also be deemed to be continuously in service of the appellant Corporation until retirement. 2. From the records we find that the respondent/writ petitioner joined the appellant Corporation as Clerk/Typist in February, 1964 and at the time of initiation of the disciplinary proceeding was holding the rank of Deputy Manager (Finance). The Executive Director of the appellant Corporation issued charge sheet to the respondent/writ petitioner on September 23, 1999 and upon holding disciplinary proceeding ultimately dismissed the said writ petitioner from the service of the Corporation by the order dated September 13,2001. 3. Challenging the said order of dismissal, a writ petition was filed before this Hon’ble Court by the concerned employee, namely, the respondent No. 1 herein and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment and order under appeal. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, instant appeal has been, preferred by the appellant Corporation. 4. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant Corporation that the respondent employee was engaged in private business and collected money without the permission of the competent authority within the premises of the Corporation. According to the learned Counsel of the appellant Corporation, aforesaid collection of money by the respondent employee was prejudicial to the interests of the appellant Corporation. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondent employee was engaged in trade/business without obtaining permission of the competent authority of the Corporation. 5. Referring to the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, Arunava Ghosh, learned Counsel representing the appellant Corporation submits that out of six charges four have been proved during the inquiry proceedings and, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in dismissing the respondent employee from the service of the Corporation. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant Corporation that the inquiry was conducted in respect of the respondent employee in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant Corporation that the inquiry was conducted in respect of the respondent employee in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice. Ghosh further submits that the respondent employee avoided the inquiry proceeding on some plea or other although the entire proceeding was conducted for a period of almost two years and almost 12 opportunities were granted to the employee concerned, namely, the respondent No. 1 herein to appear and participate in the inquiry proceeding. 6. Although it is not in dispute that the inquiry was ultimately conducted ex parte, but according to Ghosh, the same was done due to non-cooperation of the respondent employee. Ghosh specifically urged before this Court that in the inquiry it has been proved that the employee concerned was collecting money within the premises of the appellant Corporation without obtaining permission of the competent authority and there was sufficient evidence before the Inquiry Officer to arrive at the conclusion relating to the charges proved in the inquiry proceeding. 7. Referring to the various decisions of the Supreme Court Ghosh argued that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence cannot be a subject matter of judicial review. Ghosh referred to and relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his aforesaid contentions: (1) High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil and Anr. (2) Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors. (3) R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab and Ors. (4) Union of India and Anr. v. K.G. Soni (2006) 4 SCC 794 : 2006-III-LLJ-802 (5) Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co Ltd. and Ors. (6) Union of India and Ors. v. Dwarka Prasad Thvuri 8. Kashi Kanta Moitira., learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent employee submits that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were self-contradictory and the charges levelled against the employee concerned could not be proved on the basis of the aforesaid contradictory findings. Referring to the report of the Inquiry Officer, Moitra submits that in view of the contradictory, findings, charge No. 1 could not be said to be established against the employee concerned. Moitra further submits that the respondent employee had never, carried on any private business either as promoter or developer or in. Referring to the report of the Inquiry Officer, Moitra submits that in view of the contradictory, findings, charge No. 1 could not be said to be established against the employee concerned. Moitra further submits that the respondent employee had never, carried on any private business either as promoter or developer or in. any other, capacity although the respondent Corporation desperately tried to establish the link of the writ’ petitioner with the activities of the Ananda Nagar Housing Association when the formation of such Housing Association for the benefits of the employees of the appellant Corporation including their friends and relations is permissible. Moitra referred to and relied on the proviso to Rule 19(3) of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1980 in support of his contention that an employee may take part in, promotion or management of a Housing Building Co-operative Society substantially for the benefit of the employees of the Corporation. The said proviso to Rule 19(3) is quoted hereunder: 19. Private Trade or Employment: (1)... (2)... (3)... Provided that an employee may take part in the registration, promotion or management of a consumer/House Building Co-operative Society substantially for the benefit of employees of the Corporation, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act 1912 (2 of 1912) or any other law for the time being in force or of a literary, scientific or charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 (21 of 1860) or any corresponding law in force.... 9. The acts of misconduct allegedly committed by the respondent/writ petitioner have been specifically mentioned in the charge-sheet. The said charge sheet is set out hereunder: Indian Oil Corporation Limited (MD), ER 2, Gariahat Road (S), Dhakuria Calcutta - 700 068 Ref. No. HR/IR/1461/B/471 Date: September 23, 1999 Charge Sheet Department: Operation Location : Haldia Installation To: Sri M.K. Keswani, Designation : Dy. Manager (F) (Emp. No. 2288) 1. It is alleged that you have committed the following acts of omission and commission and the circumstances leading to these allegations are narrated below: Charges (i) that while holding office as Dy. Manager (S&D) in the Regional Office at Calcutta, you un-authorisedly engaged yourself in private business and acted as a promoter/ developer in respect of a project under the name of Ananda Nagar Housing Association. Calcutta, (ii) that while holding office as Dy. Manager (S&D) in the Regional Office at Calcutta, you un-authorisedly engaged yourself in private business and acted as a promoter/ developer in respect of a project under the name of Ananda Nagar Housing Association. Calcutta, (ii) that while holding office as Dy. Manager (S&D) in the Regional Office at Calcutta in course of your private business as mentioned nereinabove, you collected money from the individual employees of the Corporation with the assurance of allotting plots to them under the said project as per the details given hereunder: Name of the Employee Amount collected by you 1. Smt. A. Chakraborty Rs. 43,000.00 2. Smt. Iti Nag (Lodh) Rs. 40,000.00 3. Smt. Anurupa Dey Rs. 80,000.00 4. Smt. Anjali Banerjee Rs. 40,000.00 5. Smt. Niva Chakraborty Rs. 40,000.00 6. Smt. Mira Bose Rs. 40,000.00 7. Smt. Kana Pramanick Rs. 40,000.00 8. Smt. S. Venkataraman Rs. 40,000.00 9. Smt. T.K. Das Rs. 60,000.00 10. Sri P.K. Roy Rs. 80,000.00 11. Sri S. Sengupta Rs. 40,000.00 12. Sri M. Sengupta Rs. 40,000.00 13. Sri G. Paul Rs. 40,000.00 14. Smt. Ranu Guhu Rs. 50,000.00 15. Smt. Arati Nandy Rs. 40,000.00 2. In view of the above, you have allegedly committed the following acts of misconduct: (i) Collection without the permission of the Competent Authority of any money within the premises of the corporation except as sanctioned by any law of the land for the time being in force or rules of the Corporation. (ii) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation. (iii) Neglect of work or negligence in the performance of duty. (iv) Engaging in any trade or business without taking permission from the Competent Authority. (v) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour. (vi) Fraud or dishonesty in connection with the property of another person without the permission of the Corporation. 3. You are hereby required to submit your written explanation within 7(Seven) days from the date of receipt of this charge-sheet. Any representation that you may make in your written explanation in this connection will be taken into consideration by the undersigned. 4. In case your written explanation is found acceptable to me, the enquiry against you in the matter shall not be held and you shall be informed accordingly. Otherwise, the initiation of Department Enquiry will be communicated to you. Any representation that you may make in your written explanation in this connection will be taken into consideration by the undersigned. 4. In case your written explanation is found acceptable to me, the enquiry against you in the matter shall not be held and you shall be informed accordingly. Otherwise, the initiation of Department Enquiry will be communicated to you. The Enquiry Officer will in turn communicate to you the date, time and venue of enquiry when you should remain present along with your defending employee and with witness(es) in the matter. 5. Please acknowledge on the sub-joined form. Sd/- (M.C. Sachdeva) Executive Director-Er 10. On examination of the charge-sheet it appears that the charges leveled against the respondent/writ petitioner are not only interlinked but virtually based on the first charge which was unmistakably the foundation of the other charges. From the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer it appears that the said Inquiry Officer arrived at the following specific conclusions: Conclusions: On the basis of the observations and findings mentioned above the following are concluded: (a) The individual employees and other person have given money to Ananda Nagar Housing Association, Calcutta through Sri M.K. Keswani while he was holding office as Dy. Manager (S&D), Regional Office, Calcutta for allotment of land and they were issued receipt and letter of allotment of plot’ of land by the said Association. Hence it is proved that Sri. Keswani was engaged in private business but it could not be proved that he has acted as Promoter /Developer since his relationship with Ananda Nagar Housing Association, Calcutta could not be established during the proceedings. (b) It is proved that Sri Keswari has collected money from individual employees while he was holding office as Dy. Manager (S&D), Regional Office, Calcutta for allotment of land by Ananda Nagar Housing Association, Calcutta but it could not be proved during the proceedings that Sri Keswani has given assurance for allotment of plot of land to those employees on behalf of the said Association. 11. Going through the aforesaid findings we are satisfied that the same are very much contradictory in nature. 11. Going through the aforesaid findings we are satisfied that the same are very much contradictory in nature. The Inquiry Officer had no occasion to come to the conclusion that the respondent employee was engaged in private business inspite of arriving at the firm conclusion that it could not be proved that the said employee had acted as promoter or developer since his relationship with the Ananda Nagar Housing Association, Calcutta could not be established during the inquiry proceedings. 12. Scrutinising the inquiry report we also find that the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the said employee had collected money from individual employees for allotment of land by Ananda Nagar Housing Association, Calcutta even though it could not be proved during the inquiry proceedings that the said respondent No. 1 had given assurance for allotment of plot of land to those employees on behalf of the said Association. The final conclusion of the Inquiry Officer as recorded in the concluding paragraph of the Inquiry report are very much relevant in this regard. The said paragraph is quoted hereunder: The individual employees have given money to Ananda Nagar Housing Association, Calcutta through Sri Keswani for allotment of land for which money receipt as well as letter of allotment of land have been issued by the said Association. Since the relationship of Sri Keswani with Ananda Nagar Housing Association could not be established it could not be proved that Sri Keswani has committed fraud and dishonesty in connection with the property with another person within the premises of the Corporation. 13. In view of the aforesaid specific findings of the Inquiry Officer it cannot be said that the employee concerned namely, the respondent No. 1 herein while holding office as Deputy Manager (S&D) of the Corporation at Calcutta collected money for allotment of land by the Ananada Nagar Housing Association and issued receipt as well as letter of allotment of land. Since the relationship of the employee concerned with the Ananda Nagar Housing Association could not be established, it could not be said that the said employee collected money for the allotment of land by the said Association. 14. It was also never alleged that the employee concerned, namely, the respondent No. 1 herein had collected any money in connection with any other trade and/or business. 14. It was also never alleged that the employee concerned, namely, the respondent No. 1 herein had collected any money in connection with any other trade and/or business. All through it was alleged that the concerned employee namely, Sri Keswani collected money from other employees for allotment of land by Ananda Nagar Housing Association. When it has been specifically established in the inquiry proceeding that the said employee had no relationship with Ananda Nagar Housing Association, it cannot be said that the said employee was engaged in private trade or business without the permission of the competent authority. It has been proved in the inquiry proceeding that the individual employee had given money to Ananda Nagar Housing Association, Calcutta and not to Sri Keswani in connection with any promoting business. Therefore, it could not also be said that the said employee was engaged in private business while holding office as Deputy Manager (S&D). 15. Even if the concerned employee namely, Sri Keswani being persuaded by the friendly request of any employee carried any money for handing over to the authorised person of the Ananda Nagar Housing Association, Calcutta and subsequently handed over receipt of the said Association to the concerned employee, then the said act cannot offend any provision of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Discipline, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1980 for which any disciplinary proceeding could be initiated against the said employee and/or any punishment could be awarded. It is most unfortunate that the concerned employee insplte of having a clean and unblemished past service record and without being engaged in private business had to suffer serious prejudice at the fag end of his service career. 16. The Inquiry Officer even after coming to the conclusion that the concerned employee had no relationship with Ananda Nagar Housing Association, Calcutta, most surprisingly, arrived at a contradictory finding that the said employee was engaged in private business even though no other private business was referred to in the said inquiry report. Undoubtedly, the said finding is unreasonable and therefore, unacceptable. 17. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly appreciated the issues raised in the writ petition and decided the same in an appropriate manner. Undoubtedly, the said finding is unreasonable and therefore, unacceptable. 17. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly appreciated the issues raised in the writ petition and decided the same in an appropriate manner. Ghosh, learned Counsel of the appellant Corporation although cited various decisions of the Supreme Court as mentioned hereinbefore in support of the contention that adequacy of evidence cannot be looked into while exercising power of judicial review, but at the same time, it cannot be said that even in absence of any evidence Inquiry Officer is entitled to hold that the charges have been proved as sought to have been done in the present case. 18. From the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, we do not find that the employee concerned namely/the respondent No. 1 herein was engaged in any private trade or business or acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation due to negligence of any work while performing the duty. The Inquiry Officer after coming to the conclusion that the employee concerned namely, the respondent No. 1 herein had no relationship with the Ananda Nagar Housing Association should not have arrived at the conclusion that at least four out of six charges have been proved. If the relationship of the concerned employee with the Ananda Nagar Housing Association could not be established, then all the charges leveled against the concerned employee must fail as the alleged charges are based on the aforesaid relationship. 19. The Disciplinary Authority being the superior and responsible officer of the appellant Corporation was expected to discharge his functions in an appropriate manner while awarding the punishment to the respondent employee. The representation of the employee concerned should have been considered dispassionately along with the inquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority in order to arrive at a correct decision which, in our opinion, the said Disciplinary Authority did not do in the present case. 20. We do not find any ingredient in the inquiry report for punishing the employee concerned as none of the charges levelled against the said employee could be said to have been established even after coming to the conclusion that the said employee had no relationship with Ananda Nagar Housing Association. 21. 20. We do not find any ingredient in the inquiry report for punishing the employee concerned as none of the charges levelled against the said employee could be said to have been established even after coming to the conclusion that the said employee had no relationship with Ananda Nagar Housing Association. 21. Arunava Ghosh, learned Counsel of the appellant Corporation also argued before this Court that the employee concerned cannot claim any back wages for the period the said employee did not discharge any duty. Ghosh further submits that the employee concerned namely, the respondent No. 1 herein did not produce any document wherefrom it would be; established that the said employee was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period in question. We do not understand what document could be produced by the employee concerned in order to establish that he was not; gainfully employed elsewhere during the period in question. Ghosh referred to and relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court in support of the contention that no automatic relief of reinstatement with full back wages can be granted by this Court while burden of proof rests on the employee concerned as regards non-employment during the period in question. (1) Banshi Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2007-I-LLJ-992 (2) Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. v. Swayam Prakash Srivastava andAnr. 2007-I-LLJ-801 (3) J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and Anr. (4) General Manager, Vijaya Bank and Anr. v. Pramod Kumar Gupta (5) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. v. S.C. Sharma 22. We are, however, unable to accept the aforesaid contentions of Ghoshsince it was never urged on behalf of the appellant Corporation at any stage before the learned Single Judge that the employee concerned was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period in question and the learned Single Judge had no occasion to decide the issue relating to entitlement of back wages of the, concerned employee. The appellant Corporation, therefore, cannot raise the aforesaid issue relating to the entitlement of back wages of the employee concerned now for the first time before the Appellate Court for necessary adjudication as the same is not based on pure question of law only. 23. The appellant Corporation, therefore, cannot raise the aforesaid issue relating to the entitlement of back wages of the employee concerned now for the first time before the Appellate Court for necessary adjudication as the same is not based on pure question of law only. 23. We have already held that the Disciplinary Authority had issued the order of punishment to the employee concerned namely the respondent/writ petitioner without any valid reason and even without appreciating the contradictory findings of the Inquiry Officer, as a result whereof, the said employee had to suffer serious prejudice. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is not a case where back wages should be denied to the employee concerned namely, the respondent No. 1 herein. 24. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the payment of back-wages is a discretionary power which should be exercised upon considering the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be adopted. 25. In the instant case, the employee concerned rendered service to the appellant Corporation for a considerable period before issuance of the order of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority. The said employee concerned challenged the illegal actions of the respondent authorities including the aforesaid order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority before the Court of Law without wasting any time and the learned Single Judge upheld the contentions of the employee concerned while allowing the said writ petition. We have also affirmed the said decision of the learned Single Judge. 26. In the aforesaid circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that ends of justice would be met if the respondent employee is allowed back wages. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we affirm the judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the present appeal without awarding any costs. Let urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on usual undertaking. K. Mukherjee, J. 27. I agree.