JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner was an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board. It appears that the Electrical Executive Engineer under whom the petitioner was posted made a complaint to the General Manager of the concerned area Electricity Board that petitioner was absent in the month of June and August 1999 and because of his absence maintenance of transmission line for supply of electricity was adversely affected. The Electrical Executive Engineer requested the General Manager that in order to maintain proper supply of electricity petitioner should be transferred elsewhere. General Manager instead of transferring the petitioner referred the matter to the Board itself recommending that in view of petitioners absence as reported by the Executive Engineer petitioner should be proceeded in a disciplinary proceeding and action taken. Thus, disciplinary proceeding was started. The charge was simple of unauthorized absence. The Inquiry Officer found the charge established. Petitioner was issued show cause notice as while on the charge being established he be not punished from dismissal of service. Petitioner did not respond. Newspaper notices were issued. Petitioner did not respond. Finding no way petitioner then dis- missed from service, which order the petitioner challenged in this Court being unsuccessful in appeal. 2. The submission on behalf of petitioner is short. He submits that before a person can be held guilty the charge must be proved. In the present case, he submits that there is no evidence brought on record to support the charge. He submits that the only material that was brought on record was the letter of the Executive Engineer to the General Manager and the letter of the General Manager to the Board. No one examined even to prove those letters much less in support of those letters. It is further submitted that the Executive Engineer made a report not for the purposes of the disciplinary proceeding but for the purpose of seeking petitioners transfer. The General Manager who recommended for disciplinary proceeding had no personal knowledge about the matter, Regrettably, neither the Electrical Executive Engineer nor the General Manager was examined much less offer for cross-examination. No office records were produced in support of the communications as referred to above. 3. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. Even in a departmental proceeding it is now well established that charge must be proved. No office records were produced in support of the communications as referred to above. 3. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. Even in a departmental proceeding it is now well established that charge must be proved. Proving a charge means bringing on record all materials to support the factual allegations, the process being a quasi judicial process. The authorities and officers have to be examined in support of factual assertions in the charge. Here nothing was done. What was in fact done was the letter of the Electrical Executive Engineer written to the General Manager in a totally different context and for a totally different purpose was assumed to be the sacrosanct truth and assumed to be proving the charge. The onus was put on the petitioner to disapprove the charge and prove his innocence that in my view is not the service jurisprudence by any stretch of imagination. The question of disapproving the allegations comes when the allegations are proved and materials are brought on record otherwise the effect is that any employee is held to be guilty of a charge till he proves himself of innocence that is surely not the rule of law. Thus, on this short issue I find that the charge was not established. If the charge was not legally established that be so then all subsequent proceedings are non est and there cannot be a punishment for a charge not legally established. In the result, the writ application is allowed and the impugned orders of punishment, as contained in Annexures-5 & 7 are set aside.