BHARATI SAPRU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order of termination-dated 25. 7. 1998 by which the petitioner was removed from service of the respondent, nagar Palika Parishad. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Clerk with the Nagar Palika Parishad from the year 1981. The petitioner had also been prompted as a Head Clerk. The petitioner was suspended by an order dated 25. 9. 1986 and he was charge-sheeted on 4th October, 1986. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for not keeping the dead stock register in order and for not keeping the stock register of the old Newspapers and two other such charges. The petitioner filed a reply on 18. 11. 1986 and stated that he was not guilty of any kind of negligence in his duties and the stock was duly recorded and could be examined. He submitted his reply on 18. 11. 1986. and, thereafter, given additional reply on 15. 1. 1987. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was served with an additional charge-sheet on 24. 5. 1987 in respect of non-ayailability of the service book of one Mahavir Singh. The petitioner again submitted a reply on 14. 8. 1987. The petitioner thereafter received another charge-sheet on 29. 6. 1987 to which he submitted his reply on 7. 8. 1987. ( 4 ) IT is the petitioners case that after August, 1987 there was no progress in the enquiry proceedings and the petitioner was not Informed of any progress in the proceedings and he was never called for cross-examination of any witness or for recording of any statement after 7. 8. 1987. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Bisauli passed order on 2. 6. 1998 in which he recorded a finding that on the basis of the enquiry report dated 25. 8. 1988 all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and, therefore, he proposed the punishment of removal along with a direction to deposit Rs. 12,431. Ultimately, a loss of Rs. 12,431 was attributed to the petitioner on account of negligence in the maintenance of the dead stock register as well as the old Newspaper and no charge of any kind of misappropriation or embezzlement has been made against the petitioner. 12,431. Ultimately, a loss of Rs. 12,431 was attributed to the petitioner on account of negligence in the maintenance of the dead stock register as well as the old Newspaper and no charge of any kind of misappropriation or embezzlement has been made against the petitioner. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the charge-sheet dated 29. 6. 1987 was not accompanied by the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet and the same were never supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner was not permitted to inspect the same. ( 7 ) THEREAFTER, he contended that the petitioner was also not given a proper opportunity to appear before the enquiry officer to defend himself against the charges framed against him. He has, therefore, contended that the enquiry proceedings continued against the petitioner and were conducted against the petitioner against the principle of natural justice. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that it is only when the show cause notice was given to the petitioner seeking to impose punishment then the copy of the enquiry report was given to him. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further contended that this was a case of no evidence because not a single witness was called and examined by the enquiry officer either in favour of the petitioner or against the petitioner. His contention is that the enquiry officer conducted the entire proceedings ex-parte against the petitioner and drew conclusions which were not based on no evidence, which was established before him. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioner was given an opportunity by the enquiry officer and because the petitioner had filed a civil suit the enquiry proceedings had become long and drawn out and no evidence was there which could have been examined by the enquiry officer. ( 10 ) I have heard learned Counsel for both sides and also examined the material on record. It is clear that there was no evidence before the enquiry officer, which would establish, the charges made against the petitioner. Moreover, the charges made against the petitioner, which were found to he established against the petitioner by the enquiry officer, were hot so serious as to impose the extreme punishment of termination of service. It is clear that there was no evidence before the enquiry officer, which would establish, the charges made against the petitioner. Moreover, the charges made against the petitioner, which were found to he established against the petitioner by the enquiry officer, were hot so serious as to impose the extreme punishment of termination of service. Specially, in view of the fact that the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the total loss because of the petitioner is neglect in duty amounted to a sum of Rs. 12,341 which in any case was sought to be recovered from him. ( 11 ) IN my opinion, in view of the fact that the petitioner was not allowed to participate fully in the enquiry and in view of the fact that there is nothing on record to show that the enquiry report was given to the petitioner or that the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer were based on no evidence documentary or oral before him, the extreme" punishment of dismissal was no warranted. ( 12 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order of dismissal was, too harsh, for the reasons stated above the impugned order of dismissal hereby set aside. Since the petitioner has retired and has worked under the interim order of this Court till the date of his superannuation, he will be given all the consequential benefits that flow from the setting aside of the impugned order dismissal dated 25. 7. 1998. This writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed.