Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 412 (GAU)

State of Tripura v. Shankar Chandra Dev

2009-06-12

C.R.SARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT C.R. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.3.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura in title appeal No. 24 of 1999. 2. The plaintiff-respondent, who was working as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the Madhupur class-XII school, Bishalgarh applied for non-refundable withdrawal of Rs. 4,000/- from his GPF account and the same being sanctioned by the Head of office was withdrawn. Subsequently, the plaintiff, again on 12.5.1991 applied for non-refundable withdrawal of Rs. 3,000/- for the treatment of his wife and accordingly the same was sanctioned by the Head Mistress of the said school. This amount was also withdrawn. Subsequently, it was noticed that the said amounts were withdrawn from the GPF number of two other employees of the said school. The plaintiff approached the authority for allowing him to refund the amount in instalments but, instead of allowing the plaintiff to deposit the said amount in instalments, the authority concerned had initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the following two charges were framed against the plaintiff-respondent: Article of Charge-I : Shri Sankar Chandra Dev while functioning as UD clerk and dealing with the GPF files in the establishment of Madhuban (K) High School, Sadar, West Tripura, failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. The said Sri Dev applied for nonrefundable withdrawal of Rs. 4,000/-(rupees four thousand) only from his GPF account No. T/EDN/11659 on the ground of medical treatment of his wife though he did not complete 20 years service for becoming eligible for such non-refundable withdrawal from the GPF account as per Rule 15 of GPF rules as applicable for Tripura Government employees vide his application dated 30.12.1990. He being the dealing assistant on the subject put up the sanctioning memo for such non-refundable withdrawal in his own favour though he is not eligible as per rule and got it sanctioned for non-refundable withdrawal from the GPF account in his own favour quoting false GPF account No. T/EDN/14253 which has got no consistency with the petition for such withdrawal under above reference vide memo No. F.2(B-ACTT.)/MKH/89-90/382- 83 dated 15.1.1991. Accordingly, the said amount of Rs. 4,000/- (rupees four thousand) only was drawn from the treasury against the GPF account No. T/EDN/14253 vide voucher No. 110 dated 5.1.1991 and duly received by him. Accordingly, the said amount of Rs. 4,000/- (rupees four thousand) only was drawn from the treasury against the GPF account No. T/EDN/14253 vide voucher No. 110 dated 5.1.1991 and duly received by him. The said illegal acts of Sri Sankar Chandra Dev, accused officer remained unknown upto 14.12.1991 to the Head of office concerned till the GPF annual statements of the incumbents of that establishment for the year 1991, issued by the Accountant General, Agartala, were checked. All the GPF annual statements of that establishment were received personally from the Accountant General's Office by the said Sri Sankar Chandra Dev, but the statement in respect of Sri Swapan Kumar Deb, Assistant Teacher was not found in the bundle of the statements received by the said Sri Sankar Chandra Deb, UD clerk. The concerning teacher Sri Swapan Kumar Deb received a copy of the annual statement of GPF account for the year 1991 from the Office of the Accountant General. On verification, it was found that no withdrawal in favour of the said Assistant Teacher (Sri Swapan Kumar Deb) was made and accordingly Head of office informed the fact to the Accountant General vide his letter No. F.2(8-Acct.)/MKH/90-91/732 dated 14.12.1991. Then the alleged Sri Sankar Chandra Dev, UD clerk applied to the Accountant General on 18.12.1991 to debit the amount of Rs. 4,000/- (rupees four thousand) only from the account No. T/EDN/11659. When it was detected that he drew the said amount by adopting deceiving means, the Head of office has reported the fact to the disciplinary authority vide her letter No. F.1(l-Estt)-MKH/91-92/742-44 dated 24.12.1991. The said Sri Sankar Chandra Dev prayed to the disciplinary authority seeking permission to refund the said amount by instalment vide his letter dated 26.6.1992. Thus, it is proved that he acted in a evil motive to deceive the Government. Therefore, his act which is highly irregular and unbecoming of a Government servant attracts the provision of Rule 3(1) of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 which are sufficient reasons within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for proceeding against him under Rule 14 of the said rules. Therefore, his act which is highly irregular and unbecoming of a Government servant attracts the provision of Rule 3(1) of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 which are sufficient reasons within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for proceeding against him under Rule 14 of the said rules. Article of Charge-II : Shri Sankar Chandra Dev, while functioning as UD clerk and dealing with GPF files in the establishment of Madhuban (K) High School, Sadar, West Tripura, failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. The said Sri Sankar Chandra Dev applied for non-refundable GPF withdrawal of Rs. 3,700/- (rupees three thousand seven hundred) only from his GPF account No. T/EDN/11659 vide his petition dated 12.5.1991. Shri Deb being the dealing assistant of GPF files of that establishment put up sanctioning memo for according sanction for such non-refundable withdrawal of Rs. 3,700/- (rupees three thousand seven hundred) only in his own favour vide memo No. F.2(8-Actt.)-MKH-86-89/91/729-32 dated 14.5.1991 (signed by Head of office on 15.5.1991). The said Sri Sankar Chandra Deb prepared the bill for non-refundable withdrawal of Rs. 3,700/- (rupees three thousand seven hundred) only against the said sanctioning memo in favour of him quoting false GPF account No. T/EDN/11569 which does not belong to him, rather it relates to a teacher posted in Amarpur Sub-Division. The said amount was drawn from the treasury against voucher No. 26 dated 15.5.1991. When such nature of corrupt practise, adopted by Sri Sankar Chandra Deb, came to the notice of the Held of office, he was asked to handover the complete charges relating to GPF affairs to Sri Rakhal Chandra Dey vide Headmistress, Madhuban (K) High School memo No. F.1(l-Estt)-MKH-81-87/733-735 dated 17.12.1991. Subsequently, a reminder was issued to Sri Sankar Chandra Deb on 21.12.1991, and thereafter he handed over the charges. From the aforesaid act of Sri Sankar Chandra Deb, it proves that it is not a single instance on his part for drawing such nature of amount by way of misdoing and adopting corrupt practice. Subsequently, a reminder was issued to Sri Sankar Chandra Deb on 21.12.1991, and thereafter he handed over the charges. From the aforesaid act of Sri Sankar Chandra Deb, it proves that it is not a single instance on his part for drawing such nature of amount by way of misdoing and adopting corrupt practice. Thus, his act which is highly irregular and unbecoming on the part of a Government servant attracts the provision of Rule No. 3(1) of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 which is sufficient reasons within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for proceeding against him under Rule 14 of the said Rule. 3. After completion of the departmental enquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report holding the plaintiff guilty. The disciplinary authority, considering the inquiry report imposed the penalty of reducing the pay of the appellant by 5 stages i.e. from the scale of Rs. 1910 to Rs. 1660 to the scale of Rs. 1250-2890/- for a period of 5 years from the date of order. It was also ordered that the plaintiff would not earn any increment during the period of reduction of his pay. 4. Being aggrieved by the said punishment, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2 i.e. Commissioner to the Government of Tripura, Education Department. But the appeal was dismissed upholding the penalty without showing any reason. The plaintiff after serving notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure instituted a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division seeking a declaration that the order of punishment passed against the plaintiff was arbitrary, illegal and baseless. The defendant- appellant contested the suit by filing written statement. In their written statement it was averred that the plaintiff, after applying for the non-refundable withdrawal from his GPF account prepared the sanction memo himself by putting false account number and thus misled the Head of institution in granting the amount aforesaid. It was also contended by the defendants that the suit was not maintainable and that the punishment imposed upon him was not illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. It was also contended by the defendants that the suit was not maintainable and that the punishment imposed upon him was not illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 6.9.1999 and 13.3.1999 respectively. 5. dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree the plaintiff approached the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree aforesaid. Having heard both the sides and considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional District Judge held that the finding of the inquiry officer was without any evidence and that the same was based on surmise and conjecture and as such the plaintiff could not have been punished. The learned Additional District Judge held that the punishment being imposed without any evidence on record there was sufficient ground to interfere with the departmental proceeding in a civil suit and accordingly, while allowing the appeal on contest set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the first appellate Court, the State appellant has come up with this appeal on the ground that the learned appellate Court erred in law and facts by re-appreciating the evidence of the departmental proceeding and reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. Notice being issued the sole respondent contested the appeal. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the first appellate Court made out a case not made out in the pleadings in allowing the appeal? (ii) Whether the first appellate Court was right in appreciating the evidence? 7. I have heard Mr. C. Chakraborty, learned Additional GA for the appellants and Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also carefully perused the materials on record. 8. Mr. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel placing reliance on the decisions held in the case of R.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1976) 3 SCC 574 attacked the impugned judgment on two counts. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also carefully perused the materials on record. 8. Mr. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel placing reliance on the decisions held in the case of R.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1976) 3 SCC 574 attacked the impugned judgment on two counts. Firstly, the learned State Counsel advanced the argument that the finding of a domestic enquiry and punishment cannot be challenged by a suit and that the learned Additional District Judge committed illegality by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The second point argued by the learned State Counsel was that non-supply of the final enquiry report/documents of the inquiry officer could not be a ground to set aside the entire disciplinary proceeding. It is contended that even if such documents supplied, the direction could have been made to supply such report and to start the enquiry to reach a final conclusion after obtaining comments of the delinquent employee on the inquiry report. Reliance has been placed on the decision of South Bengal State Transport Corporation v. Sapan Kumar Mitra, (2006) 2 SCC 584 . In the said case the order of removal passed in a departmental proceeding was challenged on the ground that the documents relied on by the inquiring officer were neither in the list of documents nor the copies of the charge were supplied to the delinquent employee. The second ground of challenge was that the disciplinary authority could not continue with the departmental proceeding and impose punishment of removal from service against the respondent No. 1 after his acquittal in the criminal case. A writ petition being filed by the delinquent employee, the learned single Judge upheld the first ground regarding non-supply of copies of the report of the District Magistrate and other allied documents. The learned single Judge while setting aside the order of removal directed the disciplinary authority to supply copies of the documents to the delinquent for filing comments against the said documents and thereafter to reach a fresh conclusion on the question of removal by the respondents. The said judgment and order was challenged before the Division Bench and the Division Bench allowed the appeal. The said judgment and order was challenged before the Division Bench and the Division Bench allowed the appeal. Against the said order of Division Bench an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal observed that the learned single Judge was fully justified in directing the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage of supplying the inquiry report and other documents to the delinquent employee. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent while supporting the impugned judgment and decree submitted that by the validity of the departmental enquiry can be questioned if the final decision of the enquiry is based on no evidence thereby affecting the conduct of the proceeding. Refuting the said argument of the learned Government Advocate, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, drawing my attention to the provision of Section 9, CPC submitted that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to examine the correctness of a departmental proceeding if the same is found to be null and void for want of legal evidence. The learned senior counsel further submitted that there was not an iota of evidence suggesting that the delinquent employee i.e. the plaintiff-respondent had misled the authority by putting false GPF number in the sanction order as well as in the bill prepared for the drawal of the advance from the GPF account of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner applied for grant of non-refundable advance from his GPF account by putting his correct number in his application forms and that he played no role in preparing the sanction order as well as the bill. It is also submitted that as and when the plaintiff came to know that the amount was withdrawn from the GPF number of other employees, in all fairness, he expressed his willingness to refund the amount, but the authority concerned instead of allowing his prayer initiated a disciplinary proceeding without any reason and illegally held him guilty without any legal evidence against him. In support of his contention the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) AIR 1976 SC 2037 R.C. Sharma v. Union of India. (ii) (2006) 2 SCC 584 South Bengal Transport Corporation v. Sapan Kumar Mitra. (iii) (1999) 1 SCC 588 Union of India v. Md. Ramjan Khan. In support of his contention the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) AIR 1976 SC 2037 R.C. Sharma v. Union of India. (ii) (2006) 2 SCC 584 South Bengal Transport Corporation v. Sapan Kumar Mitra. (iii) (1999) 1 SCC 588 Union of India v. Md. Ramjan Khan. (iv) (1999) 2 SCC 10 Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police. (v) AIR 1964 SC 364 Union of India v. H.C. Goel. (vi) 2009 (2) SCC 570 Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank. (vii) 1993 (4) SCC 727 Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar. (viii) 1999 (1) SCC 472 Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura. (ix) AIR 1969 SC 78 Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh. 9. The learned Trial Judge, while dismissing the plaintiff's suit, held that the non-furnishing of enquiry report to the plaintiff, before inflicting the punishment, was a discretionary power of the disciplinary authority and that there was no denial of natural justice causing prejudice to the plaintiff,. Relying on the decision in the case of R.C. Sharma (supra) the learned Trial Judge held that the civil suit challenging the validity of the departmental proceeding cannot be treated as an appeal questioning the correctness of the finding of the departmental proceeding. While reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Judge, the learned Additional District Judge found that the appellant while applying for nonrefundable withdrawal had put the correct GPF number in the sanction memo prepared by him in respect of advances of Rs. 3,700 but the bill clerk Mr. Rakhal Chandra Dey had quoted the wrong GPF. It was also found that in the application from for the advance of Rs. 4,000/- the plaintiff quoted the correct GPF number and the bill was prepared by the bill clerk Mr. Rakhal Chandra Dey by putting wrong GPF number in the sanction memo of Rs. 4,000/-. On the basis of the sanction memo wherein also wrong GPF number was entered. The sanction memo of Rs. 4,000/- was missing from the office. The plaintiff made a prayer before the Trial Judge for calling the sanction memo from the office of the Accountant General and the office of the Accountant General replied that the same was destroyed. 4,000/-. On the basis of the sanction memo wherein also wrong GPF number was entered. The sanction memo of Rs. 4,000/- was missing from the office. The plaintiff made a prayer before the Trial Judge for calling the sanction memo from the office of the Accountant General and the office of the Accountant General replied that the same was destroyed. The plaintiff pleaded that during the period from 3.1.1991 to 6.1.1991 i.e. during which period in which the bill and the sanction memo were prepared the plaintiff was on leave. He called for the attendance register, but the relevant pages of the attendance register were found to be missing. According to the learned Additional District Judge except the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent no substantive evidence could be produced to prove that the delinquent employee i.e. the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge had prepared the sanction memo for Rs. 4,000/-. The learned Additional District Judge came to the finding that the punishment, in the departmental proceeding, was based on surmise and conjecture and that the same was without any evidence and accordingly, relying on the decision held in the case of Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1999 SC 677 the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal. In the case relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the finding of guilt in a domestic enquiry is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amendable to judicial scrutiny. In order to appreciate as to whether the finding of the learned Additional District Judge regarding non-availability of evidence is correct or not. I am inclined to examine the evidence and the materials relied on in the departmental proceeding. 10. Ext. 1 series is the enquiry report submitted by Mr. R.C. Chowdhury, inquiring officer who relied on evidence of two witnesses, PW 1 and PW 2. Smt. Nada Deb, Headmistress of the school was examined as PW 1. I am inclined to examine the evidence and the materials relied on in the departmental proceeding. 10. Ext. 1 series is the enquiry report submitted by Mr. R.C. Chowdhury, inquiring officer who relied on evidence of two witnesses, PW 1 and PW 2. Smt. Nada Deb, Headmistress of the school was examined as PW 1. In the inquiry report it was mentioned that Smt. Nanda Deb stated that the delinquent employee applied for nonrefundable withdrawal against his GPF account and that the PW 1 being a new one trusted the AO and signed the sanction memo on good faith which was found to be beyond the existing rules and that the AO quoted false GPF number in the sanction memo as well as in the bill for withdrawal of Rs. 3,700/- and Rs. 4,000/- on two different dates and that he received the said amount. The inquiring officer further mentioned, in his report that Smt. Nanda Deb could not remember whether the AO was on casual leave during the time when the sanction memo for Rs. 4,000/- was prepared and signed. Sri Rakhal Chandra Dey, who appeared as PW 2 before the inquiring officer, stated that he prepared the bills for Rs. 3,700/- and Rs. 4,000/-. Admittedly, the bills were not prepared by the delinquent employee who put the correct GPF number in his applications. Now the question was whether the delinquent had put the wrong GPF number in the sanction memo and the bills. In the present case, the sanction memos or the bills were not sent to the handwriting expert for ascertaining as to who had prepared the same. Regarding preparation of the sanction memo for withdrawal of Rs. 4,000/- on 5.1.1991 the delinquent employee took the plea that from 3.1.1991 to 6.1.1991 he was on leave. The inquiring officer held that the delinquent employee could not produce any document to prove his absence on those days. The plea of absence was not accepted by the Inquiring Officer. The Inquiring Officer further held that as the AO stated that he was not conversant with the GPF Rules relating to non-refundable withdrawal, the charge was admitted and stood proved. Regarding charge No. 2 i.e. withdrawal of Rs. 3,700/- the inquiring officer found that the amount was withdrawn by putting a false number in the bill. Admittedly, the bill was prepared by the bill clerk Mr. Rakhal Chandra Dey. Regarding charge No. 2 i.e. withdrawal of Rs. 3,700/- the inquiring officer found that the amount was withdrawn by putting a false number in the bill. Admittedly, the bill was prepared by the bill clerk Mr. Rakhal Chandra Dey. The inquiring officer held as follows: It may happen that this wrong quoting of GPF account was due to unintentional error. The bill clerk will not do a mischief for gain of the AO. The AO and DW 2 Sri Dey were working in the same establishment and while the AO was a clerk dealing with the GPF matter and while the sanction of the GPF was also in favour of AO there is every possibility that the bill for Rs. 3,700/- in favour of AO against the GPF was prepared by the AO himself where the GPF account number quoted fraudulently. This finding of the inquiring officer is based on presumption only. In view of the preparation of the bill by Mr. Rakhal Chandra Dey, the presumption that, probably, the GPF number was wrongly quoted by AO was not based on any sound reasons and legal evidence. Ext. 2 series is the deposition made by Smt. Nanda Deb, Headmistress of the school. In her statement, given before the inquiring officer, Smt. Deb, nowhere stated that the delinquent employee had himself put the wrong GPF number in the sanction memo or in the bill. In her cross-examination she stated that she could not remember as to who had prepared the bill. She exhibited the initial of the AO in the office copy of the GPF sanction memo. She further stated that the sanction memo was not prepared subsequently, and that the GPF bill for Rs. 4,000/- was prepared by the bill clerk. She also stated that Mr. Rakhal Chandra Dey had intimated her that he had prepared the bill for withdrawal of Rs. 4,000/-. This witness further stated that there was no signature of the AO i.e. the delinquent officer on the sanction memo showing that the memo was prepared by the AO. From the said evidence, that there was no signature of the AO on the sanction memo it is clearly found that there is no evidence that AO had prepared the sanction memo. From the said evidence, that there was no signature of the AO on the sanction memo it is clearly found that there is no evidence that AO had prepared the sanction memo. Deposing as DW 1 the delinquent employee stated that during the period from 3.1.1991 to 6.1.1991 he was on leave and that he did not prepare the sanction memo regarding nonrefundable withdrawal of amount of GPF. In view of the evidence of the Headmistress sufficient corroboration is found in favour of the evidence of the delinquent employee to believe that the delinquent employee did not prepare the sanction memo. 11. In view of the above discussion, it is clearly found that the disciplinary authority failed to adduce any substantive/legal evidence to establish that the delinquent employee had himself prepared the sanction memo and the bills by putting wrong GPF number. Therefore, the finding of the inquiring officer was based on no evidence. That apart, the finding of the inquiring officer, that as the delinquent employee worked in the same establishment along with the bill clerk i.e. Rakhal Chandra Dey, dealing with the GPF matters, there was every possibility that the bill for Rs. 3,700/- was prepared by the delinquent employee in his favour not being based on any evidence, was nothing but a perverse finding. Therefore, the conduct of the departmental proceeding and the finding in the said proceeding being without any substantive evidence vitiated the result itself and as such the same was liable to be declared null and void. The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff has further submitted that the disciplinary authority committed illegality and violated the principles of natural justice by inflicting the punishment without furnishing a copy of the inquiry report and without giving opportunity of hearing before the imposition on penalty. Admittedly, as revealed from the record the copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the delinquent employee before passing the order inflicting the punishment. Therefore, it appears that the penalty on the delinquent employee was imposed without giving him an opportunity of hearing and refuting the enquiry report. Admittedly, as revealed from the record the copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the delinquent employee before passing the order inflicting the punishment. Therefore, it appears that the penalty on the delinquent employee was imposed without giving him an opportunity of hearing and refuting the enquiry report. In the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakaran, (1993) 4 SCC 727 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held (at para 57) as follows: The findings or recommended punishment by the enquiry officer are likely to affect the mind of the disciplinary authority in his concluding the guilt of penalty to be imposed. The delinquent is, therefore, entitled to meet the reasoning, controvert the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer or is entitled to explain the effect of the evidence recorded. Unless the copy of the report is supplied to him, he would be in the dark to know the findings, the reasons in support thereof or nature of the recommendation of penalty. He would point out all factual or legal errors committed by the enquiry officer. He may also persuade the disciplinary authority that the finding is based on no evidence or the relevant material evidence was not considered or overlooked by the inquiring officer in coming to conclusions. Therefore, it has been settled that to facilitate a delinquent employee to prove his innocence, by refuting the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer reasonable opportunity or fair play in action should be provided by furnishing a copy of the enquiry report before acting on the enquiry report and arriving at a conclusion regarding the punishment. Failure to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent caused grave prejudice and avoidable injustice. The disciplinary authority should make up its mind regarding the proof of charge and the nature of penalty after considering the enquiry report and the explanation submitted by the delinquent. In the case relied upon, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the supply of copy of the report is a sine qua non for a valid, fair, just and proper procedure to defend the delinquent himself effectively and efficaciously and that the denial thereof was not only offending the Article 311(2) but also violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court imposition of penalty in a departmental proceeding, by the disciplinary authority without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and without giving an opportunity of submitting explanation or being heard amounts to violation of natural justice causing prejudice to the delinquent employee. In the case of R.C. Sharma (supra) it was held that if denial of reasonable opportunity to be heard contravenes mandatory provision of law or a rule of natural justice it could vitiate the whole departmental proceeding. In such a case prejudice to the Government servant resulting from alleged violation of rule is required to be proved. In the present case in hand, the disciplinary authority, having failed to furnish a copy of the enquiry report, and by awarding the penalty without giving an opportunity of hearing and without asking any comments in respect of the enquiry report deprived the delinquent employee from challenging the enquiry report submitting his explanation in respect of the same. Thus, imposition of penalty without hearing caused much prejudice to the delinquent employee and this resulted violation of rule of natural justice. 12. In the case of Union of India v. Md. Ramjan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held (in paragraph 18) as follows: We make it clear that wherever there has been an inquiry officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter. In the said case, while reproducing the observation made by Prof. Wade regarding concept of natural justice the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in a quasi judicial matter if the delinquent is deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is made available to the punishing authority in the matter of reaching his conclusion, rules of natural justice would be affected. Wade regarding concept of natural justice the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in a quasi judicial matter if the delinquent is deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is made available to the punishing authority in the matter of reaching his conclusion, rules of natural justice would be affected. Prof Wade has pointed out that "the concept of natural justice has existed for many centuries and it has crystalised into two rules; that no man should be judged in his own cause; that no man should suffer without first being given a fair hearing... They (the Courts) have been developing and extending the principles of natural justice so as to build up a kind of code of fair administrative procedure, to be obeyed by authorities of all kinds. They have done this once again, by assuming that Parliament always intends powers to be exercised fairly." 13. In the case of Mazarul Islam v. State of U.P., (1979) 4 SCC 537 , it was held that the ratio in the case of Md. Rashid Ahmed's case Md. Rashid Ahmed v. State of U.P., (1979) 1 SCC 596 , was that it was a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will effect the rights of any person without first giving him an opportunity of putting forward his case. In the said case the main requirement of fair hearing as observed by the Apex Court earlier was reflected as follows: (i) person must know what he is to meet and (ii) he must have an adequate opportunity of meeting that case. In view of the above principles laid down by the Apex Court, non-furnishing of the enquiry report and imposition of punishment without giving any opportunity of being heard amounted to gross violation of natural justice causing prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the imposition of the penalty violating the principle of natural justice and the principles of fair play was bad in law. Hence, the same was liable to be set aside by exercising the power of judicial review. The learned Counsel appearing for the State-appellant, relying on the decision held in the case of R.C. Sharma, (supra) submitted that validity of the departmental proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal and that such proceedings cannot be questioned by a civil suit. Hence, the same was liable to be set aside by exercising the power of judicial review. The learned Counsel appearing for the State-appellant, relying on the decision held in the case of R.C. Sharma, (supra) submitted that validity of the departmental proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal and that such proceedings cannot be questioned by a civil suit. The learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Civil Judge Senior Division rightly dismissed the suit holding that the departmental proceeding cannot be challenged in the civil suit. In the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent the question of non-furnishing of enquiry report and imposition of penalty without giving due opportunity was raised. In the case of R.C. Sharma (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the validity of the departmental enquiry can be challenged in the civil suit only when it goes to the root of the jurisdiction and the conduct of the departmental trial vitiating the results. It was held that if the departmental proceeding is found to be null and void then only plaintiff can being a suit seeking relief. Refuting the said argument advanced by the learned Government Advocate Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent referring to the Section 9 of CPC submitted that the Code did not oust the Civil Court to question the validity and legality of a disciplinary proceeding. It is also submitted that as the departmental proceeding was concluded followed by imposition of punishment without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and without giving opportunity of being heard the principle of natural justice was violated and therefore, the plaintiff acquired the right to approach the Civil Court seeking a declaration in respect of the departmental proceeding. Imposition of penalty without furnishing the enquiry report which was used against the delinquent employee and failure to give an opportunity of being heard before arriving at a decision on the basis of the said enquiry report affected the conduct of the departmental proceeding itself. Imposition of penalty without furnishing the enquiry report which was used against the delinquent employee and failure to give an opportunity of being heard before arriving at a decision on the basis of the said enquiry report affected the conduct of the departmental proceeding itself. In the case of Y.P. Sarabhai v. Union Bank of India, (2006) 5 SCC 377 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the factual finding of the disciplinary authority after holding a detailed enquiry and after going through elaborate evidence is not assailable in Courts, unless breach of principles of natural justice or violation of any rules or any material irregularity on the face of the record is alleged and shown. In view of the non-furnishing of the enquiry report and failure to give opportunity of being heard, before imposing the penalty, there was violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case of Dhulabai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the Court, and examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In view of decision held in Knldeep Singh's case (supra) the finding of a domestic enquiry if based on no evidence, would be a perverse finding and the same would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. Therefore, in a case of no evidence the jurisdiction of the Court is there to examine the correctness of the finding recorded at the domestic enquiry. 14. As discussed above from the evidence on record, it has been noticed that there was no substantive evidence against the delinquent employee and as such the penalty was imposed without legal evidence. It is settled that suspicion or presumption howsoever high cannot substitute the legal evidence and such suspicion cannot be the basis for holding a person guilty either in a domestic enquiry or in a criminal trial. In view of the above principles and law laid down by the Apex Court and in absence of sufficient legal evidence, the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to seek appropriate relief from a Civil Court of law. In view of the above principles and law laid down by the Apex Court and in absence of sufficient legal evidence, the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to seek appropriate relief from a Civil Court of law. In the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the learned Additional District Judge being the first appellate Court committed no illegality or error of law by examining the evidence on record and reversing the impugned judgment and order. As discussed above, it was already been found that the finding of the inquiring officer was not based on any reliable or substantive evidence and as such the decision of the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of lowering 5 stages of increments in the pay scale of the appellant was not lawful and as such the same was liable to be set aside. 15. Though prejudice and injustice were done to the plaintiff-respondent by failing to provide a copy of the enquiry report before imposing the penalty, this Court would have remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the enquiry report and to proceed from that stage after inviting comments in respect of the enquiry report. But in view of the absence of any legal evidence, in support of the charges brought against the plaintiff-respondent, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter. As the disciplinary authority failed to establish the charges against the plaintiff-respondent by adducing cogent and legal evidence indication the guilt of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's suit should have been decreed. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge, in my considered opinion committed no illegality by allowing the appeal and reversing the impugned judgment an order of the learned Trial Court. 16. Accordingly, I find no merit in this appeal to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge in T.A. No. 24 of 1999. 17. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed