Judgment :- Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 3rd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.38505/E4(1)/96 dated 25. 2003 imposing punishment of removal from service and to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition is as follows:- .(i) Petitioner was employed as Khadi Inspector. Since, Petitioner passed Co-operative training, he was posted as Special Officer in Thuraiyur Carpentry and Blacksmith Workers Industrial Co-operative Society [for short Society] from 110. 1994 to 30.11.1996 and the Society was registered by 3rd Respondent to promote rural employment to the artisans. The Society has been procuring orders from various Government departments/local bodies and complete the job as per their requirement and earns a sizable income to run its members family. According to the Petitioner, it is a precondition that whenever a Special Officer procures orders to do a particular job, the said job was distributed among the members of the Society, so that the member get work throughout the year. .(ii) Case of the Petitioner is that Village Industries Co-operative Officer, office of Regional Dy. Director, Khadi and Village Industries, Trichy inspected the Society on 211. 1995 and found several irregularities and misappropriation of Society funds. Inspection report revealed that Petitioner has procured orders from various Government departments/local bodies and purchased the finished product in the open market and delivered the same to them in the name of the Society as if the products were manufactured by the Society and thereafter, Petitioner prepared bogus vouchers as if the manufacturing cost was paid to the members of the Society. (iii) Gist of the Charges is that Petitioner had done all transactions by cash instead of cheque and that he misappropriated more than Rs.20 lakhs. .(iv) Based on the irregularities, Petitioner was placed under suspension and a Charge Memo was issued on 25. 1996. As many as 13 Charges were framed under Regulation 34 (b) of Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Boards Service Regulations. Petitioner gave his explanation and domestic enquiry was ordered in accordance with Disciplinary rules. .(v) Gist of the Charges are :- Charge No.1 : Prepared bogus vouchers and misappropriated the Society fund to the tune of Rs.15,65,000/-. Charge No.2 : Petitioner did cash transactions beyond Rs.500/- instead of cheque transactions. Petitioner gave his explanation and domestic enquiry was ordered in accordance with Disciplinary rules. .(v) Gist of the Charges are :- Charge No.1 : Prepared bogus vouchers and misappropriated the Society fund to the tune of Rs.15,65,000/-. Charge No.2 : Petitioner did cash transactions beyond Rs.500/- instead of cheque transactions. Charge No.3 : Payment of Rs.2,18,650/-was made without proper vouchers and also made false entry in the ledger. Charge No.4 : Without sufficient balance in the Society account, Petitioner issued cheques to the parties and thereby committed offence punishable under IPC. Charge No.5 : Without sufficient balance in the Society account, Petitioner issued cheques to the parties and as a result, Petitioner destroyed the goodwill and development of the Society. Charge No.6 : By keeping heavy cash in hand, Petitioner misappropriated the Society fund. Charge No. 7 : Without obtaining prior permission from the Asst. Director, Petitioner opened bank account in other banks on his own accord, thereby Petitioner violated rule 79 of Co-operative Societies Act. ...... and six other Charges. (vi) One S.Ravi, Asst. Director was appointed to conduct enquiry. After conducting enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the 3rd Respondent on 14. 2003 stating that there is no loss to the Society. (vii) Upon consideration of report of Enquiry Officer, 3rd Respondent differed from the views of Enquiry Officer and held that the Charges are proved against the Petitioner. After calling for explanation from the Petitioner, punishment of removal from service for the proved Charges was imposed upon the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd Respondent, Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority -2nd Respondent and the 2nd Respondent rejected the appeal. (viii) Grievance of the Petitioner is that without following the rules and procedure, 2nd Respondent held that Charges are proved against the Petitioner and imposed punishment of removal from service on the Petitioner which is in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Opposing the Petition, 3rd Respondent has filed counter stating that Petitioner participated in the domestic enquiry and answered all the questions. It is further averred that enquiry was conducted observing the principles of natural justice. According to the Respondents, finding of the Enquiry Officer is not erroneous. 4. Challenging the impugned order, Mr. 3. Opposing the Petition, 3rd Respondent has filed counter stating that Petitioner participated in the domestic enquiry and answered all the questions. It is further averred that enquiry was conducted observing the principles of natural justice. According to the Respondents, finding of the Enquiry Officer is not erroneous. 4. Challenging the impugned order, Mr. P.Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that it is the case of no evidence and without any evidence or examination of witnesses, it was held that Charges are proved causing loss to the Board. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that no witness was examined nor any document was marked and the findings are based on presumptions and the Appellate Authority has not gone into all the aspects. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon AIR 1999 SC 2407 [Bank of India and another v. Degala Suryanarayana]; (2007) 1 SCC 681 [Narmada PD.Yadav v. State of M.P. and others]; 2007 (5) CTC 157 [A.Lourdusamy v. Dy. Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Southern Railway, Chennai and another]; (1999) 2 SCC 10 [Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others]; and 1978 LAB. I.C. 1106 [Nand Kishore Prasad v. The State of Bihar and others]. 5. Mr.S.Packiaraj, learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent has submitted that strict rules of evidence in a Court of law are not applicable to the domestic proceedings. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent has submitted that in violation of Rule 79 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, without prior approval, Petitioner has opened bank account out side the area of Society at Ranipet, Secretariat, Chennai and other places. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent further submitted that in violation of Co-operative Societies Rules, Petitioner did cash transactions instead of cheque transactions and thereby caused huge loss to the Thuraiyur Carpentry and Blacksmith Workers Industrial Co-operative Society. Drawing courts attention to the ledger and vouchers, learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent has submitted that Petitioner had preferred bogus vouchers and thereby misappropriated the amount and having regard to the records, the Authority has rightly held that Charges are proved against the Petitioner and the punishment imposed is proportionate to the proved Charges. 6. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent has produced the files to substantiate his contention that Charges are amply substantiated by materials. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent has drawn attention of the Court to Ledger/Pravesa Puthagam. 6. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent has produced the files to substantiate his contention that Charges are amply substantiated by materials. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent has drawn attention of the Court to Ledger/Pravesa Puthagam. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent also drawn Courts attention to certain entries in the ledger book which indicates that certain payments are said to have been made to one K.S. Prakasam, Athiappan, N.Senthilkumar and Poovan. In the file, there are corresponding vouchers. However, it was stated that the signatures in those vouchers are not those of the said K.S. Prakasam, Athiappan, N.Senthilkumar and Poovan and Petitioner himself had signed and created those vouchers. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent would further submit that there are several such instances where bogus vouchers were created by the Petitioner. 7. I have carefully gone through the records like Ledger Book, Voucher Book and file relating to the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry report is in question and answer form. Enquiry Officer himself appear to have put questions to the delinquent and recorded the answers. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 14. 2003 stating that Charges are not substantiated. 8. On behalf of the Respondents, it is stated that all the documents were produced before Enquiry Officer. Though ledgers and other registers were produced before Enquiry Officer, in the report of Enquiry Officer, there is nothing to indicate that Enquiry Officer referred to those documents. Like wise, there is nothing to indicate that whether any witnesses were examined and documents were marked and opportunity was given to the Writ Petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. 9. Though, rules of evidence are not strictly applicable to departmental enquiry, in the departmental proceedings reasonable opportunity is to be given to the delinquent. The basic principles of conducting departmental enquiry are succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in (2008) 8 SCC 236 [State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh] as follows:- 15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge: .(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. .(ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the enquiry officer. .(ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the enquiry officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the enquiry officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any." 10. The third proposition in the above decision is relevant for the present case i.e. the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and given opportunity to him to cross examine the witnesses of the employer. In the present case, though registers are said to have been produced in the enquiry proceedings, the documents were not marked nor witnesses were examined. Since, number of Charges are levelled against the Petitioner, it is desirable that Thuraiyur Carpentry and Blacksmith Workers Industrial Co-operative Society should adduce oral and documentary evidence. 11. The charges levelled against the Petitioner cannot be quashed on the ground that witnesses were not examined or documents were not marked and that there was violation of principles of natural justice. In 2008 (5) CTC 285 [Union of India v. Y.S.Sandhu, Ex-Inspector), there was allegation of violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that witnesses examined were not produced for cross examination by the employee. Quashing the final order, High Court has passed order of reinstatement of the Writ Petitioner. Setting aside the order of re-instatement, Supreme Court has directed that proceedings shall continue from that stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced. Quashing the final order, High Court has passed order of reinstatement of the Writ Petitioner. Setting aside the order of re-instatement, Supreme Court has directed that proceedings shall continue from that stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced. It is fairly well settled that when departmental proceedings suffers from irregularities, department could be directed to proceed with the matter afresh. 12. In the result, the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.38505/E4(1)/96 dated 25. 2003 is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:- "Third Respondent shall appoint either Asst. Director (other than Karur District) or any other Officer as Enquiry Officer; "Third Respondent shall also appoint the Presenting Officer to represent Thuraiyur Carpentry and Blacksmith Workers Industrial Co-operative Society. Preferably, Special Officer of the Society shall be the Presenting Officer. "If Thuraiyur Carpentry and Blacksmith Workers Industrial Co-operative Society is not functioning, 3rd Respondent shall appoint any other competent person as Presenting Officer to represent Thuraiyur Carpentry and Blacksmith Workers Industrial Cooperative Society and to adduce evidence on behalf of the Society. "Third Respondent shall appoint Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. "Enquiry Officer shall complete the enquiry preferably within a period of four months after his appointment, but not later than six months. Both parties are directed to co-operate in the departmental proceedings.