JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is a case of removal from service pursuant to a departmental proceeding. The short question which falls for consideration is as to whether the charge of furnishing false information regarding qualification, ability or previous service which has been held to be established in the departmental enquiry that led to the order of removal of the petitioner from service, can be said to be so in the background facts and circumstances. 2. Although, the issue involved is in a very narrow compass but to appreciate the same the service career of the petitioner will have to be traced back. During the period 1981-87, the petitioner was an employee of Vijaya Bank, wherein he discharged the duties of Special Assistant. It is relating to this period of service with which the present proceeding is concerned. As per bipartite settlement applicable to the employees of Vijaya Bank arrived at on 17.9.1984 (Annexure P/1), the status, duties and functions of Special Assistant were described as follows: Special Assistants.-Special Assistants will be accountable and responsible for running of the department/section under them and their duties will involve looking after and checking the work of other clerk or clerks and sub-staff and will include: (1) Passing independently cash, cheques up to Rs. 10,000/- and clearing and transfer cheques, vouchers etc. (whether credits or debits) up to and including Rs. 25,000/- (or any higher limit fixed by the bank on its own discretion). Passing will include verification of signatures and scrutiny as to the correctness of endorsements on and other particulars of such instruments. (2) Signing vouchers, cheques, drafts, mail transfers, pay orders, advices such as non-payment advices, inter-branch fate calling advices, bill schedules, demand notices, statements certificates etc. (3) Checking all vouchers, advices, statements, cheques drafts, etc., bills and books of accounts including current, savings and other ledgers, cash, postal and revenue stamps, franking machine balances. (4) Checking current, savings and other ledgers. Provided that if any additional allowance is paid to any employee/s under any existing system in a bank for lodger checking, such payment and ledger checking system shall continue undisturbed, and such continuance shall preclude any claims by a workman for a change in status. (5) Checking the coding and decoding of telegrams (excluding check symbols or ciphers). Provided that if any additional allowance is paid to any employee/s under any existing system in a bank for lodger checking, such payment and ledger checking system shall continue undisturbed, and such continuance shall preclude any claims by a workman for a change in status. (5) Checking the coding and decoding of telegrams (excluding check symbols or ciphers). 'Checking' would mean verifying that the material checked is in order in all respects and also includes initialing the same for authentication. (6) Discharging, endorsing cheques, bills, etc. (7) Inspecting godowns (only in banks where such work is already being done by workmen). For the purpose of efficient and effective functioning of the section or department, the special assistant shall ensure that all acts, things and steps necessary therefore are taken by himself or by the clerks placed under him and shall ensure that, wherever necessary. (a) Reminders are sent on time and followed up; (b) Pass sheets/books are filled up and issued promptly; (c) Deposits are renewed on due dates or reminders sent to the parties; (d) Standing instructions are complied with; (e) Bills are accepted and due dates diarised/advised and followed up; (f) Interest, commissions and service charges are collected; (g) Proceeds of bills are received or remitted promptly; (h) Confirmation of balances of accounts of the customers and its follows-up; (i) All securities relating to the department/section of which the special assistant is in charge are secured or kept in proper custody and properly handed over to the authorised person at the close of the day; (j) Balances promptly taken, tallied and reported and followed up and also returns submitted; (k) Advices and/or duplicate advices/summaries are issued/responded promptly, whenever called for; (l) Checking the proper recording of entries and all relevant particulars in regard to accounts opened under due authorisation. 3. While the petitioner was in the employment of Vijaya Bank as Special Assistant, the petitioner vide his Annexure-P/2 application dated 1.6.1987 applied, through proper channel, for appointment on deputation to the post of Assistant Regional Chief (Finance) under the respondent No. 1 i.e., HUDCO. The application along with the bio-data of the petitioner was forwarded by the Branch Manager, Ghaziabad Branch of Vijaya Bank. 4. The application along with the bio-data of the petitioner was forwarded by the Branch Manager, Ghaziabad Branch of Vijaya Bank. 4. In response to the said application, the HUDCO authority by its letter dated 8.6.1987 intimated the Chairman and Managing Director of Vijaya Bank, its decision to take the services of the petitioner on deputation in the capacity of Senior Finance Officer. Thereafter, upon acceptance of the offer so made, the petitioner was appointed as Senior Finance Officer on deputation under the Respondent No. 1 (HUDCO) vide Annexure P/4 office order No. 531 dated 6.7.1987. 5. Pursuant to the said order of appointment, the petitioner joined services of HUDCO at its Ahmedabad Regional office on 10.7.1987. On 20.1.1988, the authority of HUDCO at Ahmedabad Office wrote a letter to the Chief Finance (P), HUDCO, strongly recommending the absorption of the petitioner in HUDCO. In turn, the HUDCO authority wrote the letter dated 4.4.1988 to the Chairman and Managing Director of Vijaya Bank for their approval for permanent absorption of the petitioner in HUDCO. The Vijaya Bank conveyed its no objection for absorption of the petitioner in HUDCO and also accepted the resignation of the petitioner dated 4.4.1988 from the Vijaya Bank. 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid developments, the petitioner was relevied from the services of the Vijaya Bank and he was absorbed in HUDCO in the post of Senior Finance Officer w.e.f. 31.3.1988. Thereafter, on recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Chief Finance by Annexure P/6 office order dated 6.1.1992. 7. The petitioner was further promoted on recommendation of the DPC to the post of Deputy Chief Finance. The order to that effect was issued on 3.7.1996 (Annexure P/7). Be it stated here that under the HUDCO recruitment rules which came info affect from 31.1.1994, the qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Chief Finance was provided as 15 years post qualification experience in an executive capacity levant fields. 8. The petitioner, on the recommendation of the DPC was further promoted to the post of Chief (Finance)/Regional Chief. As per rules, for direct recruitment to the said post, 20 years of experience of working in executive capacity in financial institution/bank is the requirement. Such promotion of the petitioner was affected by Annexure P/8 office order dated 18.8.2000. 9. The trouble for the petitioner started thereafter. As per rules, for direct recruitment to the said post, 20 years of experience of working in executive capacity in financial institution/bank is the requirement. Such promotion of the petitioner was affected by Annexure P/8 office order dated 18.8.2000. 9. The trouble for the petitioner started thereafter. By Annexure P/9 advertisement dated 26.1.2003, HUDCO advertised the post of Executive Director (Finance) for direct recruitment. As per the advertisement, 20 years experience was required for the post in an executive capacity in financial institution/bank. The petitioner responded to the advertisement and applied for the post by his Annexure P/10 application dated 31.1.2003. 10. In the advertisement, the experience prescribed for the post of Executive Director (Fin) with which the controversy rose was "post qualification experience of 20 years in an executive capacity in financial institution/banks". There is no dispute that the petitioner duly qualified in the other conditions of eligibility. In the resume submitted by the petitioner alongwith his application regarding his post qualification experience, he intimated the following: POST QUALIFICATION EXPERIENCE (IN DESCENDING ORDER) : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. Name of Post Scale of Duration and No. Empl- Pay Nature of Duties oyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HUDCO Chief Rs. 18500- Since 18.8.2000 Finance 450-23900 onwards Regional Chief, Bangalore. Additional Charge of Trivandrum Regional Office since 12th July, 2002. Member of the Sub-Group of Audit Committee of HUDCO. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. HUDCO Dy. Chief Rs. 7000- 4.7.1996-17.8.2000 Finance 275-8100- Regional Chief, 300-9600 Bangalore from 5th September 1996. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. HUDCO Asstt. Rs. 4600- 6.1.1992-3.7.1996 Chief 150-5350- Asstt. Regional Finance 160-6790 Chief, Banglore. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. HUDCO Sr. Rs.1800- 8.4.1988-5.1.1992 Finance 2480 Sr. Finance Officer Officer Ahmadabad and Sr. Finance Officer, Bangalore w.e.f. 5.7.1991. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. HUDCO Sr. Rs. 1800- 10.7.1987-7.4.1988 Finance 2480 On Deputation Officer from Vijaya Bank (on Depu- as Sr. Finance tation) Officer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Vijaya Spl. Rs. 3200/- Special Bank Assistant p.m. assignment given for resource mobilization for the bank. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended for Prime Minister’s SHRAMSHREE Award for exemp- lary and dedicated work. All India top Performer Award for Resource Mobilization. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. The Selection Committee was constituted on 4.3.2003 of which the respondent No. 4 who has been arrayed as party respondent by name (Dr. PS. Rana) was one of the members. The interview for selection to the post of Executive Director (Fin) was held on 13.3.2003. All India top Performer Award for Resource Mobilization. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. The Selection Committee was constituted on 4.3.2003 of which the respondent No. 4 who has been arrayed as party respondent by name (Dr. PS. Rana) was one of the members. The interview for selection to the post of Executive Director (Fin) was held on 13.3.2003. It will be pertinent to mention here that out of the many applicants, only 8 (eight) departmental candidates were short listed and were called for the interview. The Selection Committee recommended 3 (three) candidates and the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 1. 12. When the matter rested thus, one Shri A.K. Kaushik, who was working in the capacity of Regional Chief/Chief (Finance) at HUDCO and who was also one of the candidates for the post of Executive Director (Fin.) made a complaint, alleging irregularities in the selection process. The complaint was lodged vide Annexure P/11 dated 22.3.2003. 13. On 24.3.2003, the minutes of the Selection Committee were placed before the Board of Directors which approved the minutes of the selection and also approved the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Executive Director (Fin) with immediate effect. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed to the post by Annexure P/12 order dated 24.3.2003. After appointment of the petitioner as aforesaid, things moved smoothly for him till the respondent No. 4 took charge as Chairman and Managing Director of HUDCO in November, 2003. During January to March, 2004, the petitioner was acting as Executive Director in-charge of local Head Office at Bangalore. In such capacity, he had the power to sanction loan upto Rs. 100 crores in each case aspect of Government agency and upto Rs. 25 crores in each case aspect of private sector agencies. In January, 2004, the HUDCO Regional Office, Hyderabad, sent a proposal to the petitioner to sanction a loan of around Rs. 25 crores to one Srishaki Resorts and Hotels Ltd., Hyderabad. The proposal was rejected by the petitioner on 3.3.2004 on the ground that the same was not conforming to the requirement of the prevailing guidelines. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 tried to pressurise him for clearance of the loan, but the petitioner remained firm. That led to the strained relationship between the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner and consequences followed. 14. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 tried to pressurise him for clearance of the loan, but the petitioner remained firm. That led to the strained relationship between the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner and consequences followed. 14. The petitioner was to complete one year of probation period in the post of Executive Director on 23.3.2004. However, just six days before i.e., 17.3.2004, the probation period of the petitioner was extended for a further period of three months by the respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation dated 16.4.2004 to the respondent No. 4, in which he desired to know the reason for extension of the period of probation. 15. What followed, is the Annexure P/13 memorandum containing 3(three) articles of charges issued against the petitioner proposing to an enquiry under Rule 26 of the HUDCO Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976. The three articles of charges are as follows: (A) Furnishing false information regarding qualification ability or previous service or any other matter germane to the employment at the time of employment. (Rule 5(4) of HUDCO CD and Appeals Rules, 1976. (B) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation. (Rule 5(5) of HUDCO CD and Appeals Rules, 1976. (C) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour. (Rule 5(21) of HUDCO CD and Appeals Rules, 1976. 16. In the statement of allegations in respect of the articles of charges, upon a reference to the advertisement for the post of Executive Director (Finance), the required experience for the post mentioned therein and the aforementioned resume submitted by the petitioner, indicating his experience, the basic allegation was as follows: As the said Resume was submitted in response to the advertisement wherein the experience in executive capacity was required, therefore, Shri Alva had held out that the post qualification experience mentioned by him in the organisations mentioned therein including in Vijaya Bank was in an executive capacity. Believing the aforesaid representation made by Shri KR Alva to be correct therefore, Shri Alva was selected and was appointed as Executive Director (Finance) vide appointment letter dated 24th March, 2004. It has now come to the notice that Shri Alva while working as a Special Assistant in Vijaya Bank was not employed in an executive capacity. Believing the aforesaid representation made by Shri KR Alva to be correct therefore, Shri Alva was selected and was appointed as Executive Director (Finance) vide appointment letter dated 24th March, 2004. It has now come to the notice that Shri Alva while working as a Special Assistant in Vijaya Bank was not employed in an executive capacity. His experience in the said post of Special Assistant was not an experience in an executive post. In case the said experience in Vijaya Bank is excluded, Shri Alva had not put in 20 years post qualification experience in an executive capacity, he thus did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the advertisement for the post of Executive Director (Finance). 17. It was the aforesaid complaint of Shri A.K. Kaushik dated 22.3.2003 which formed the basis of the memorandum of charges issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his Annexure P/14 written statement of defence denying the allegations made against him. So far as the question of sanctioning the aforesaid loan which according to the petitioner led to the strained relationship between him and the respondent No. 4, it is on record that the respondent No. 4 himself took the initiative for sanctioning the loan and for the purpose he got the proposal recommended by the Proposal Appraisal Committee at the Corporate Office headed by himself and put up to the Board for approval. The Board of Directors headed by the respondent No. 4 himself sanctioned the loan of Rs. 23.64 crores to said M/s. Srishaki Resorts and Hotels Ltd. 18. By order dated 17.5.2004, the petitioner was transferred as Executive Director (North East Zone), Guwahati and he joined at Guwahati on 2.7.2004. So far as the disciplinary proceeding is concerned, the disciplinary authority appointed one Shri S.K. Sinha, Executive Director (Law) as the Inquiry Officer and Shri P.M. Tripathy, Executive Director (HR & MS) as the Presenting Officer. It was at that stage, the petitioner preferred writ petition being WP No. 27163/2004 in the Karnataka High court, Bangalore assailing the legality and validity of the memorandum of charges. Initially, by an interim order dated 1.7.2004, the disciplinary proceeding was stayed. However, by order dated 28.3.2004, the writ petition was dismissed. The writ appeal being Writ Appeal No. 4376/2004, preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 8.11.2004. Initially, by an interim order dated 1.7.2004, the disciplinary proceeding was stayed. However, by order dated 28.3.2004, the writ petition was dismissed. The writ appeal being Writ Appeal No. 4376/2004, preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 8.11.2004. In the meantime, by an order dated 21.7.2004, issued by the HUDCO authority, the petitioner was stopped from looking after the operational matters of sanction, realisation, default resolution etc. He was also denied substantive work and robbed off administrative and financial powers. 19. The petitioner filed another writ petition being WP @ 2785/2005 in this Court for a direction to the respondent No. 4 to rescue himself from the departmental proceeding and to refer the departmental enquiry to the Central Vigilance Commission (for short CVC). By interim orders passed on 8.4.2005 and 4.8.2005, the disciplinary authority was restrained from passing any final order in respect of the disciplinary proceeding but allowed to continue with the said proceeding. Situated thus, the respondent No. 4 decided to refer the departmental proceeding to the CVC for conducting the inquiry. Being satisfied with the decision, the petitioner withdrew his writ petition on 24.11.2005. The CVC appointed its Inquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry against the petitioner. 20. In the writ petition, the petitioner has referred to the depositions made by the witnesses on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority which according to him clearly absolved him from the charges. Their depositions would be referred to later in this judgment. 21. On conclusion of enquiry proceeding, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 3.3.2006 holding that the charge No. B&C of the article of charges had not been established. As regards the charge No. A, which is the core issue, the findings of the Inquiry Officer was as follows: As far as the issue of furnishing false information is concerned, the inquiry believes that the CO did not give any information which was false but, it was conveyed with the spirit that his experience in Vijaya Bank was in executive capacity, whereas the inquiry has come to the conclusion that it was not so and therefore, in this manner the information was not true which can be termed falls. Therefore, the allegation mentioned in Annexure-B of the charge-sheet is substantiated and the Article of charge mentioned at 'A' of Annexure-A of charge-sheet is proved. 22. Therefore, the allegation mentioned in Annexure-B of the charge-sheet is substantiated and the Article of charge mentioned at 'A' of Annexure-A of charge-sheet is proved. 22. The petitioner was furnished with a copy of the inquiry report asking him to furnish reply to the same. In the meantime, the CVC which was conducting the enquiry in five cases of financial irregularities in HUDCO with regard to sanction of loans to private firms called upon the petitioner to give detailed statement in the matter of sanction of loan of Rs. 23.64 crores to the aforesaid M/s. Srishaki Resorts and Hotels Ltd. The petitioner made his statement on 15.3.2006. 23. In response to the inquiry report dated 3.3.2006, the petitioner submitted his representation against the aforesaid findings of the Inquiry Officer. In the meantime, the CVC submitted its enquiry report into the five cases of financial irregularities with regard to sanction of loans to private firms by HUDCO. The CVC held the respondent No. 4 guilty of gross financial irregularities with regard to sanction of loan to M/s. Srishaki Resorts & Hotels Ltd., and recommended investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 24. When the petitioner came to know about the said recommendation of the CVC against the respondent No. 4, he was apprehensive of adverse order of the Disciplinary Authority i.e., the respondent No. 4 and consequently by his Anneuxre P/23 letter dated 12.7.2006 requested him to rescue himself from the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Similarly, the letter dated 10.7.2003 was also written to the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation for restraining the respondent No. 4 from taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. The respondent No. 4, ignoring the objection raised by the petitioner and without making any reference to his objection, vide the aforesaid letter dated 12.7.2006 passed the impugned order dated 14.7.2006, imposing the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner. 25. Being aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 33 of the HUDCO, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976, before the Board of Directors which, however, was rejected by the Board by its order dated 6.10.2006 (Annexure P/26). 25. Being aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 33 of the HUDCO, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976, before the Board of Directors which, however, was rejected by the Board by its order dated 6.10.2006 (Annexure P/26). It will be pertinent to mention here that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was placed before the Board of Directors in its 408th meeting held on 15.9.2006, which was presided over by the respondent No. 4. It is in the aforesaid factual background of the case, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned order of removal from service, upheld by the Appellate Authority. 26. The impugned order has been assailed amongst others and mainly on the following grounds: (a) The disciplinary proceeding was wholly unwarranted inasmuch as the petitioner never furnished any false information regarding his qualification, ability or previous service while applying for the post of Executive Director (Finance). (b) The charge was levelled against him out of sheer mala fide and colourful exercise of power at the behest of respondent No. 4 as there was strained relationship between the petitioner and the said respondent on account of refusal of the petitioner to sanction the loan in question. (c) The charge which has been indirectly held to have been established does not constitute any charge inasmuch as apart from the fact that the petitioner never furnished any false information as was alleged, he was duly qualified to apply for the post, he having fulfilled the requirement of the experience laid down in the advertisement. (d) The allegation of not having worked in an executive capacity in the Vijaya Bank while he was serving there as Special Assistant is not borne out of records, inasmuch as, apart from the fact that the requirement was not of having worked in an executive post but in executive capacity, the nature of the job involved in the post of Special Assistant and performed by the petitioner necessarily involved works in executive capacity. 27. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have resisted the writ petition. According to them, the disciplinary proceeding having been conducted in a fair manner, there is no scope for interference. It is their case that the tenure of the petitioner in the Vijaya Bank as a Special Assistant was in the clerical cadre and not in the executive cadre. 27. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have resisted the writ petition. According to them, the disciplinary proceeding having been conducted in a fair manner, there is no scope for interference. It is their case that the tenure of the petitioner in the Vijaya Bank as a Special Assistant was in the clerical cadre and not in the executive cadre. It is the further case of the respondents that the requirement of the experience in executive capacity having not been fulfilled by the petitioner, he ought not to have projected his tenure of service in the bank as a tenure in executive capacity. As regards the allegation of the petitioner against the respondent No. 4, the respondents have denied any mala fide exercise of power by the said respondent. Referring to the observations made by the Karnataka High Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, it is the stand of the respondents that the said order clearly depicts the misconduct on the part of the petitioner as was levelled in the memorandum of charges. 28. Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in his persuasive pursuits and elaborate argument, referring to the aforesaid facts submitted that nothing else can be a better example of victimisation of an efficient, honest and diligent officer. On the other hand, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Senapati, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted in equal vehemence that the petitioner having suppressed the actual experience to his credit while applying for the post of Executive Director (Finance), has rightly been awarded with the penalty of removal from service. Referring to the observations made by the Karnataka High Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, he submitted that the said observations clearly demonstrate the misconduct on the part of the petitioner. 29. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the materials available on records. 30. The facts speaks for itself. It is not a case where the legality and validity of a departmental proceeding is to be judged in the touchstone of the principles underlying such a proceeding. The career graph of the petitioner upto the level of the Executive Director (Finance) has been noted above. 30. The facts speaks for itself. It is not a case where the legality and validity of a departmental proceeding is to be judged in the touchstone of the principles underlying such a proceeding. The career graph of the petitioner upto the level of the Executive Director (Finance) has been noted above. The petitioner rose to the rank of Executive Director (Finance) from the humble beginning of his career as a Special Assistant in the particular bank. The nature of the job involving a Special Assistant in the said bank as per the bipartite settlement dated 17.9.1984 (Annexure P/1) has been noted above. It is absolutely immaterial as to whether the Special Assistants are in the executive cadre or not. The requirement of the advertisement was the post qualification experience of 20 years in an "Executive Capacity" in financial institution banks and not in executive cadre. A Special Assistant in the bank is accountable and responsible for running of the department/section under him and his duties involved looking after and checking the work of other clerks and sub-staff. He is empowered to pass independently cash, cheques upto Rs. 10,000/- and clearing and transfer cheques, vouchers etc. upto and including Rs. 25,000/-. On a bare perusal of the bipartite settlement so far as the same relates to the duties, functions and responsibilities of the Special Assistants are concerned, there is no escape from the conclusion that the same involved discharge of duty in supervisory/executive capacity. It is in this context, the expression used in the advertisement i.e., "Executive Capacity", will have to be understood and not otherwise. 31. The petitioner in his resume enclosed to the application submitted by him offering his candidature for the post of Executive Director clearly mentioned the post of Special Assistant held by him in Vijaya Bank. He also mentioned the scale of pay attached to the post. There was absolutely no withholding of any fact not to speak of furnishing any false information. The requirement of the post of Executive Director (Finance) as indicated in the advertisement and as noted 'above was post qualification experience of 20 years in an executive capacity and the petitioner while indicating such experience to his credit amongst others also mentioned his working experience in the post of Special Assistants in the bank. The requirement of the post of Executive Director (Finance) as indicated in the advertisement and as noted 'above was post qualification experience of 20 years in an executive capacity and the petitioner while indicating such experience to his credit amongst others also mentioned his working experience in the post of Special Assistants in the bank. It is not understood as to on what count, the petitioner was branded to have furnished false information regarding the said experience. 32. It is altogether a different thing to say that the experience in the post of Special Assistant in the bank was not in the executive capacity but it is absolutely another thing to say that the petitioner by disclosing his said experience in the bank had furnished false information. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner by furnishing the information regarding his experience in the bank withheld something or depicted something else as experience which he could not have gathered having worked in the post of Special Assistant. 33. Above aspect of the matter will also have to be considered taking into account the fact that the application submitted by the petitioner was duly scrutinised and his candidature was accepted. Thereafter, he was called for the interview by the selection board and was recommended as the first nominee. Such recommendation was also accepted by the Board of Directors pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed to the post of Executive Director (Finance) by order dated 24.3.2003. Nothing happened immediately thereafter, but things started moving in quick succession once the strained relationship between the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner got developed due to difference of opinion relating to the particular proposal towards sanctioning the aforesaid loan to the M/s. Srishaki Resorts & Hotels Ltd. It is on record that the petitioner rejected the proposal but the same was approved at the initiative of the respondent No. 4. He himself was the head of the Proposal Appraisal Committee and the Board of Directors which sanctioned the loan amount. As to what happened thereafter has already been noted above. 34. Although, the particular complaint was lodged by Shri A.K. Kaushik on 22.3.2003, the issuance of the memorandum of charge was on 16.4.2004 i.e., one year thereafter which coincided with the rejection of the loan proposal by the petitioner which eventually got through with active participation of the respondent No. 4. 34. Although, the particular complaint was lodged by Shri A.K. Kaushik on 22.3.2003, the issuance of the memorandum of charge was on 16.4.2004 i.e., one year thereafter which coincided with the rejection of the loan proposal by the petitioner which eventually got through with active participation of the respondent No. 4. The petitioner had rejected the proposal on 3.3.2004 inspite of the intervention of the respondent No. 4 and immediately thereafter his period of probation was extended for another three months by order dated 17.3.2004 followed by the memorandum of charge-sheet dated 16.4.2004. Thereafter the respondent No. 4 got the proposal for the loan approved through the Proposal Appraisal Committee and the Board of Directors headed by him. 35. The aforesaid aspect of sanctioning the loan by the respondent No. 4 was enquired into by the CVC and the CVC by its report dated 27.3.2006 while pointing out the financial irregularities with regard to sanction of loan by the respondent No. 4 and holding him guilty of gross financial irregularities recommended investigation by the CBI. 36. It is in the aforesaid back-drop, the petitioner by his letter dated 12.7.2006 made a request to the respondent No. 4 to disassociate himself from acting as the Disciplinary Authority. Further by his letter dated 10.7.2006 also, he had requested the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation for restraining the respondent No. 4 from taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. 37. In view of the above factual aspect of the matter, it would have been prudent on the part of the respondent No. 4 to disassociate himself from acting as the Disciplinary Authority but instead he by his impugned Annexure P/24 order dated 14.7.2006 removed the petitioner from service. Not only that he also headed the meeting of the Board of Directors and presided over the meeting held on 18.9.2006 which considered the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal. The appeal was dismissed and to that effect the Annexure P/26 order dated 6.10.2006 was passed. 38. Not only that he also headed the meeting of the Board of Directors and presided over the meeting held on 18.9.2006 which considered the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal. The appeal was dismissed and to that effect the Annexure P/26 order dated 6.10.2006 was passed. 38. In V. Mahadevan v. D.C. Aggarwal reported in AIR 1994 SC 961 , the Apex Court on perusal of the records when found that the particular interview committee comprised of two of the persons against whom the respondent had field contempt petition in the High Court were also the appellants before the Apex Court, it was held that those officers who were occupying very high position in the bank, in all propriety should have withdrawn from the committee constituted for the purpose. Without imputing any bias against the said two officers, the Apex Court expressed the opinion that the principle of fairness required that they should not have sat on the board. 39. In the instant case, the fact entering around the sanctioning of the particular loan and the objection raised by the petitioner and eventual recommendation of the CVC against the respondent No. 4, the simultaneous initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner and his transfer to Guwahati, extension of the period of probation, robbing him off from his duties and responsibilities will go to show that what the petitioner has asserted in the writ petition against the respondent No. 4, has a strong backing and cannot be ignored lightly. Although the respondent No. 4 has been arrayed as party respondent by name with clear cut allegation against him, but he has not responded to this proceeding by filing any affidavit. There being personal allegation against him, it was necessary for him to file personal affidavit responding to the allegation made against him. 40. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1994) 6 SCC 98 , the Apex Court dealing with the plea of mala fide raised by the applicant before the Tribunal and the manner in which the same was dealt with by the Tribunal observed thus: We may observe that we do not approve of the manner in which the Tribunal proceeded to decide the case. reported in (1994) 6 SCC 98 , the Apex Court dealing with the plea of mala fide raised by the applicant before the Tribunal and the manner in which the same was dealt with by the Tribunal observed thus: We may observe that we do not approve of the manner in which the Tribunal proceeded to decide the case. Allegations of mala fides having been made by the appellant on affidavit, it is difficult to fathom how the Tribunal rejected them without even requiring a counter-affidavit to rebut them. The Tribunal's perception that the allegations made on affidavit by the appellant even without any rebuttal do not constitute the plea of mala fide, is obviously incorrect. The Tribunal also did not appreciate the true extent of scrutiny into such a matter and the grounds on which a transfer is judicially reviewable. The conclusion we have reached in the present case is for the reasons given by us and not those which impelled the Tribunal to reject the appellant's claim. 41. Some of the statements made by the witnesses examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority may be gone into at this stage. PW 2 is the Deputy Chief Administration. He in his deposition stated about short listing of 14 candidates including 8 departmental candidates for the post of Executive Director (Finance). He had substantially contributed in drafting the advertisement. He stated that all the applications were thoroughly examined including the background of the candidates who had applied for the post before submitting the recommendation for the approval of the competent authority i.e., the CMD, HUDCO. He also stated that in the cases of departmental candidates, the individual records of the candidates were perused wherever felt necessary before submitting the recommendations. In a nutshell, what he has stated in his deposition, is that there was nothing wrong in processing the case of the petitioner as he duly conformed to the requirement of the appointment and recommending him for the appointment. 42. In his cross-examination to the specific question as to whether he found any discrepancy between the prescribed criteria in the advertisement and the relevant information available with HUDCO regarding the petitioner before putting up the recommendation for his short listing for interview, his answer was that the petitioner prima facie met the specification of the post. 42. In his cross-examination to the specific question as to whether he found any discrepancy between the prescribed criteria in the advertisement and the relevant information available with HUDCO regarding the petitioner before putting up the recommendation for his short listing for interview, his answer was that the petitioner prima facie met the specification of the post. To the further specific question as to whether he had seen the initial application submitted by the petitioner at the time of his deputation of HUDCO in 1987, his reply was in the affirmative. He also categorically stated that the nature of duties performed by Special Assistants is supervisory and that he was aware of the job profile of Special Assistants in banks as per the bipartite settlement. He also stated that he did not know as to why the queries were sent to Vijaya Bank and that he was not consulted at that stage. To the specific question (Question No. 9) that since he had contributed very substantially to the drafting of the advertisement for the post of Executive Director (Finance), why the expression used was "executive capacity" and not "executive cadre" and as to what would be the difference between the two, his specific answer was that the HUDCO rules stipulate post qualification experience in executive capacity and there was thus no question of altering the same. He also stated that the word executive capacity is differentiated with that of executive/officer grade by the nature of duties performed. In question No. 11, his specific answer was: In the light of my replies above a person can perform responsibilities in an executive capacity despite holding positions other than executive cadre or scales, if assigned to. 43. Likewisein response to the question No. 15 as to whether he would accept the petitioner's experience in the Vijaya Bank as Special Assistant in executive cadre in HUDCO, his reply was follows: As such there was no analysis made treating the seven years experience for the post of SFO. However, his case was recommended considering his nature of experience i.e., Supervisory experience for the post of ED (F). This was discussed with my Controlling Officer, ED (H) and CMD, HUDCO. 44. DWs 1, 2 and 3 also in their deposition, supported the case of the petitioner. However, his case was recommended considering his nature of experience i.e., Supervisory experience for the post of ED (F). This was discussed with my Controlling Officer, ED (H) and CMD, HUDCO. 44. DWs 1, 2 and 3 also in their deposition, supported the case of the petitioner. It will be pertinent to mention here that DW 1 is the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), DW 2 was the former Chairman and Managing Director, Vijaya Bank and DW 3 was the Director, Institute of Integrated Learning of Management. All of them had worked in the HUDCO and were in the know-how of the process of the applications for the post of Executive Director (Finance) and the selection conducted on that basis. In fact, DW 3 was the Chairman of the Selection Committee. 45. It is on the above basis, the charge Nos. 2 and 3 could not be held to have been established and so also the charge No. 1. The Inquiry Officer in his report gave categorical findings that "As far as the issue of furnishing false information is concerned, the enquiry believes that since the CO. did not give any information which was false...". However, at the same time made an observation that the particular experience was conveyed with the spirit that his experience in Vijaya Bank was in executive capacity and by furnishing such information which was not true, it can be termed as false. It is with such finding, the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the first charge. Likewise, the Disciplinary Authority i.e., the respondent No. even after agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the information furnished by the petitioner was not false, but observed that the same was intended to convey something which was not true. It will be pertinent to quote the observations and findings of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, which are as follows: Inquiry Officer.-"As far as the issue of famishing false information is concerned, the inquiry believes that the CO did not give any information which was false but, it was conveyed with the spirit that his experience in Vijaya Bank was in executive capacity, whereas the inquiry has come to the conclusion that it was not so and, therefore, in this manner the information was not true which can be termed as false. Therefore, the allegation mentioned in Anneuxre 'B' of the charge-sheet is substantiated and the Article of charge mentioned at 'A' of Annexure 'A' of charge-sheet is proved". Disciplinary Authority.-"In response to the said requirement of the advertisement, Mr. Alva had mentioned his experience in his resume at Sl. No. 6 he had mentioned his experience in Vijaya Bank as Special Assistant. In his resume he did not mention that his experience as Special Assistant in Vijaya Bank was in a executive capacity. I, therefore, agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the said information furnished by the CO was not false in itself but was intended to convey something which was not true and thus in this manner it amounts to false information (page 52). I may also mentioned that Mr. Alva in his resume or against his experience as Special Assistant did not mention that his said experience was not in an executive capacity". 46. The impugned order dated 14.7.2006 passed by the respondent No. 4 also mentions about the observation made by the Karnataka High Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner to which Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel representing the respondents also referred to during the course of hearing. At the first instance, the disciplinary proceeding was stayed by the Karnataka High Court and thereafter the writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 23.8.2004. The writ petition was dismissed primarily on the ground that an allegation against the petitioner having been made regarding furnishing false information, the matter would require further scrutiny and accordingly the proceeding should be allowed to continue. 47. It is unfortunate that the Disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned order of removal also took recourse to the observations made in the judgment inspite of the fact that the High Court made it categorically clear that the Inquiry Officer shall decide the charges levelled against the petitioner on its merit and in accordance with law without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made in the judgment. It was further observed that all contentions would remain open to be agitated in Court. The observations in the judgment were for the purpose of deciding the issue as to whether the inquiry proceeding should be stayed at the initial stage of issuance of the charge-sheet. It was further observed that all contentions would remain open to be agitated in Court. The observations in the judgment were for the purpose of deciding the issue as to whether the inquiry proceeding should be stayed at the initial stage of issuance of the charge-sheet. It was held that since the allegation of furnishing false information would require adducing of evidence etc., it would be inappropriate to stay the proceeding. The Court found prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner by way of departmental proceeding. It is in this context, the observations were made, but in the final paragraph of the judgment, it was observed thus: It is made clear that the Enquiry Officer shall decide the charges levelled against the petitioner on its merits and in accordance with law without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. All contentions are kept open to be agitated in Court. 48. The charge against the petitioner which is said to have been established has been noted above. The allegation was that the petitioner had furnished false information regarding his experience in executive capacity. Both the authorities i.e., the Inquiry and the Disciplinary, have categorically held that the petitioner was not guilty of furnishing false information but at the same time held him guilty that the information furnished by him was not true. Such a finding is utterly perverse and based on no evidence at all. 49. The particular charge against the petitioner having been framed, the petitioner could have been held either guilty or not guilty of the said charge but to hold him guilty, the charge itself could not have been deviated. Needless to say that in case of any deviation, he was entitled to get an opportunity to meet the same. The charge itself did not indicate the kind of finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority. The charge of furnishing false information having been levelled, it was only at that charge which could have been gone into in the enquiry proceeding. In fact, that was gone into and the categorical findings of the Inquiry Officer has been noted above. The charge of furnishing false information having been levelled, it was only at that charge which could have been gone into in the enquiry proceeding. In fact, that was gone into and the categorical findings of the Inquiry Officer has been noted above. Unfortunately, inspite of holding the petitioner not guilty of furnishing any false information, something else has been attributed to the petitioner which never formed part of the charge and thus the petitioner naturally did not get any opportunity to have his say in the said altered charge. 50. The Disciplinary Authority also agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the information furnished by the charged officer was not false but held the petitioner guilty of intending to convey something which was not true. That was never the charge framed against the petitioner. Either the petitioner was guilty or not guilty of the charge of furnishing false information. Once having held that he was not guilty of furnishing false information, the matter came to an end. However, both the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority proceeded further with the matter and attributed something to the petitioner which never formed part of the charge. Coupled with this, the Disciplinary Authority also referred to the observations made by the karnataka High Court to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge inspite of the aforementioned observations of the High Court. 51. There is yet another very important aspect of the matter. The three charges levelled against the petitioner have been quoted above. The basic charge is the charge No. 1 which is, furnishing false information regarding experience in Vijaya Bank. The other two charges i.e., acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation and commission of act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour are interlinked with the first charge and naturally flow from the same. It is only on establishing the first charge, the other two charges incidental and necessarily co-related to the first charge, can be said to be established. This aspect of the matter finds mention in the enquiry report as was contended by the Presenting Officer. While holding the said two charge not established, the Inquiry Officer observed thus: As far as the charges mentioned at (B) & (C) of Articles of charge are concerned, the PO has mentioned that these charges would flow from the first charge at (A). While holding the said two charge not established, the Inquiry Officer observed thus: As far as the charges mentioned at (B) & (C) of Articles of charge are concerned, the PO has mentioned that these charges would flow from the first charge at (A). But, nothing of that sort has been mentioned in Annexure-'B' i.e., Statement of Allegation. No evidence either oral or documentary has been produced during the course of the proceedings to prove these charges. Hence these two charges are not substantiated in any form. 52. The charge No. 'B' and 'C having been held not established as no evidence, either oral or documentary, was produced by the Disciplinary Authority to prove the same, the Charge No. A, so co-related to the said two charges and which charges did not have any independent existence, but for the charge No. A, could not have been held established and that too in a different way other than the charge itself which aspect of the matter has been discussed above. Both the authorities i.e., the Inquiry and Disciplinary were fully alive in their legal senses that the charge No. 'A' was not established and accordingly held it to be so, but they proceeded further with the matter so as to give a different twist to it projecting and attributing altogether a different version of the charge and holding the petitioner guilty of the same. 53. The Disciplinary Authority while imposing the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner totally ignored the fact that the petitioner joined HUDCO initially on deputation as a Senior Finance Officer. It is nobody's case that the petitioner came on deputation by furnishing wrong or false information. It is also nobody's case that the petitioner was absorbed by HUDCO on the post of Senior Finance Officer on the basis of any false information furnished by him. Subsequently, petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Chief (Finance) in 1992 followed by another promotion to the Deputy Chief (Finance) in 1996 which was further followed by another promotion to the post of Chief (Finance) in the year 2000. All these promotions were given to the petitioner in conformity with the provisions of HUDCO Recruitment and Promotion Rules. This being the position, the petitioner could not have been held guilty of furnishing false information regarding his experience in the Bank. He never furnished any false information. All these promotions were given to the petitioner in conformity with the provisions of HUDCO Recruitment and Promotion Rules. This being the position, the petitioner could not have been held guilty of furnishing false information regarding his experience in the Bank. He never furnished any false information. Everything was placed before the authority. Thus, the finding that the Charge No. 'A' has been proved and that too with the twisted version is totally perverse, based on no evidence at all and not sustainable in law. 54. It is most unfortunate that the respondents have demoralised the petitioner who till the impugned order of removal from service, discharged his duties honestly and diligently. This is one of the eloquent exercise where such a sorry state of affairs has come to light. The service profile of the petitioner referred to above would go to show that the petitioner is a very competent officer. After absorption in HUDCO, various promotions earned by him in due course are recognition of his merit. Even in the case of recruitment to the post of Executive Director (Finance) he had topped the list. In view of the unimpeachable and eloquent testimony of performance and duties, coupled with what has been discussed above, it will be obvious that the entire proceeding and the impugned orders are by way of victimisation of an honest officer at the behest of the power that be, which the petitioner has indicated as the respondent No. 4 to which there is no response from him. The forced excursion into the arena of litigation has unfortunately halted the career graph of the petitioner, which otherwise would have risen to further height. 55. This has reminded me of the case of Shri G.C. Sarma v. BRPL and Ors. reported in 2006 (1) GLT 235. In that case, a particular proposal was passed through collectively but the petitioner was picked up to find fault with the proposal. Pursuant to the departmental proceeding, he was reduced in rank. He successfully challenged the order of reduction in this Court. Thereafter the matter was taken to the Apex Court and the Apex Court also by its judgment reported in 2008 (1) GLT 5 BRPL v. G.C. Sarma) upheld the finding that the petitioner was victimised, as the particular decision was taken collectively. It was held that the charge against the petitioner was misdirected. Thereafter the matter was taken to the Apex Court and the Apex Court also by its judgment reported in 2008 (1) GLT 5 BRPL v. G.C. Sarma) upheld the finding that the petitioner was victimised, as the particular decision was taken collectively. It was held that the charge against the petitioner was misdirected. The Apex Court while upholding the Division Bench Judgment of this Court held that the petitioner was made a scapegoat, whereas the decision by all the committees was unanimous. It was observed that, "if the decision of the Committee stinks it cannot be said that the petitioner alone stinks; it will be arbitrary. If all fish stink, to pick one and say only it stinks is unfair in the matter of unanimous decision of the Committee". It was further observed thus, "More so, the Division Bench after considering the matter has found that the whole approach was perverse because the respondent alone has been made a scapegoat. When the decision of all he three Committees was unanimous, then to take one and put the entire blame on him is definitely perverse approach and the Court cannot stand to technicalities so as to defeat the ends of justice". 56. As in the said case in the instant case also, the application submitted by the petitioner for the post of Executive Director (Finance) was processed at different levels involving officers with responsibilities. He was interviewed by a duly constituted selection board and the matter was processed further and eventually was cleared by the Board of Directors. Thereafter, he was appointed to the said post. It is only thereafter the things moved in quick succession about which detailed discussions have been made above. The probation period of the petitioner was extended, he was transferred and robbed off his powers, functions and duties and eventually removed from service. Nothing more can be a better example of victimisation than the instant case. 57. For all the aforesaid reasons I have no hesitation to set aside and quash the impugned orders dated 14.7.2006 (Annexure P/24) passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HUDCO and the one dated 6.10.2006 (Annexure P/26) passed by the Board of Directors and communicated by the Chief (Law and HR&MS), HUDCO. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential service benefits including salary treating him to be in service with duty all throughout. 58. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential service benefits including salary treating him to be in service with duty all throughout. 58. The writ petition is allowed, without however, no order as to costs. Petition allowed