Judgment 1. Petitioners in these four writ petitions are dismissed Junior Engineers of the Water Resources Department of the State of Bihar. They were dismissed upon conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. Against the orders dismissing them, they approached this Court by filing writ petitions, when this Court refused to entertain the writ petitions on the ground that the writ petitioners have not exhausted the remedy of preferring appeals against the orders dismissing them. Petitioners thus preferred appeals and lost. Hence these petitions. 2. These are classic cases of total non-availability of any evidence on records to put home the charges leveled against the petitioners. The charges against the petitioners were identical. The first charge was that in connection with Durgawati Dam Project for digging up a diversion channel a contract was awarded to a contractor with a promise to pay him the charges for removal of earth on head load basis but subsequently the same was converted to mechanical load basis and at that time a scheme was hatched by the engineers with the self-same contractor to make clay blanketing work at Kharsauta Canal in between chain 5 and 11 and for that purpose a tender was issued and the contract pursuant to the said tender was awarded to the self-same contractor. It was stated that the object thereof was to use the clay obtained from the diversion channel in the clay blanketing work and thereby to obtain double payment for one work. The enquiry officer in his report has reported that since in respect of the contract for clay blanketing work at Kharsauta Canal petitioners had written measurement books, the first charge of collusion stands proved. The fact remains that it was the Executive Engineer with the approval of the Chief Engineer, representing the State Government, invited the tender. The fact also remains that it is the State Government and its responsible officers, who awarded the contract under the said tender. There is nothing on the record which would suggest that in the matter of issuing the tender notice or in the matter of finalizing the same any of the petitioners had any role to play. The fact also remains that it is the State Government and its responsible officers, who awarded the contract under the said tender. There is nothing on the record which would suggest that in the matter of issuing the tender notice or in the matter of finalizing the same any of the petitioners had any role to play. Once the State Government decided to carry out a work, junior engineers, who are responsible to take measurement of the work done, are bound by the assignment of their duty to take such measurement and to make appropriate entries in the measurement books. Mere entry of the measurement of the work done in the measurement books by the petitioners cannot impress any prudent person to hold that they were party to the collusion for invitation and settlement of the contract. 3. The second charge against the petitioners was that in the measurement book it had been shown that 7,69,794 cubic ft. of stripping work has been done in between 7th January, 1988 and 12th January, 1988. It was stated in the charge-sheet that the said work had been shown to have been done without actually doing the said work. In order to establish the said charge the report of the flying squad dated 23rd March, 1988 and deposition of Ram Chandra Jha were relied. According to the finding of the enquiry officer, as has been reported by him, 7,69,794 cubic ft. of stripping work in five days was difficult. Therefore, evidence on records suggested that such work within such time was a difficult work, but not an impossible work. The enquiry officer held that the said charge stands proved inasmuch as the self same contractor did little over 96 lacs cubic ft. of work in one and a half years time in relation to another work. Because little over 96 lacs cubic ft. of earth work was done by the contractor in relation to another work, the enquiry officer concluded that 7,69,794 cubic ft. of work could not be done by the self same contractor under the contract in question within a period of five days. The question is, can a prudent person opine in such a manner and hold the petitioners guilty? The undoubted answer would be no. of work could not be done by the self same contractor under the contract in question within a period of five days. The question is, can a prudent person opine in such a manner and hold the petitioners guilty? The undoubted answer would be no. The conclusion of the enquiry officer in respect of the second charge is, therefore, based on surmises and conjectures but not on evidence or materials on record. In this connection, it must also be noted that the work in terms of the said tender was clay blanketing of Kharsauta Canal and that required stripping work as well as clay blanketing work. The State Government, by finalizing the said tender, allotted only thirty days time to complete the said work. In the background of these informations as were brought on record, we do not think a prudent person could at all conclude in the manner the same was concluded by the enquiry officer in relation to the second charge as was leveled against the petitioners. 4. The third charge was again that without doing any blanketing work of Kharsauta Canal it was shown that 19,32,031 cubic ft. of work has been done in twelve days time. It was alleged that earth removed while digging diversion channel was dumped on the bank of Kharsauta Canal and the same was bulldogged in Kharsauta Canal to show alleged blanketing work. There was no material on record suggesting dumping of earth on the bank of Kharsauta Canal and similarly there is nothing on record suggesting bulldogging of the same. It was also alleged that while doing so mud was not removed. The enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that evidence on record do not suggest that there was mud over which earth was dumped or that there was any requirement of removing mud before carrying out the blanketing work. The enquiry officer, however, has opined on the similar analogy as has been applied by him in relation to the second charge that such huge work in such a short time could not be done and accordingly held that the charge stands proved. The enquiry officer, however, has opined on the similar analogy as has been applied by him in relation to the second charge that such huge work in such a short time could not be done and accordingly held that the charge stands proved. For the similar reasons as indicated above, we do not think that there was any evidence on record or on the materials on record taken as a whole as were available with the enquiry officer, any prudent person could opine in the manner the enquiry officer has opined in the enquiry report in relation to the third charge. Conclusion, therefore, would be that without making any effort to bring on record any material or evidence to prove any of the charges, the enquiry officer reported that the charges stand proved. The disciplinary authority without applying its mind, mechanically accepted what had been opined by the enquiry officer as gospel truth, and thereby erred. The appellate authority by non-speaking orders dismissed the appeals. 5. In these circumstances, writ applications are allowed. The orders of the appellate authority as well as of disciplinary authority are set aside. It is declared that the enquiry report is a product of total non-application of mind and based on surmises and conjectures. Petitioners shall be forthwith reinstated. It is declared that the petitioners were prevented from discharging their duties attached to their posts for the illegal orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority.