JUDGEMENT 1. Heard. 2. The writ petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Bhabhua. He alongwith others were entrusted with the task of execution of Mahadev Reservoir Scheme. Later on he was charge- sheeted on the basis of a report of the Flying Squad. The main allegation is that he had made excess payment to the contractor with the help of others and in course of enquiry he was found guilty and on the basis of the said report he was dismissed from service. One of the contentions of the writ petitioner is that the final order in the departmental proceeding should have been passed by the disciplinary authority but it has been passed by the Deputy Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, who is the appellate authority. It has been submitted by the counsel for the writ petitioner that the proper opportunity was not given to the writ petitioner before awarding punishment and enquiry was vitiated as held without complying with principles of natural justice and rules. No oral evidence was adduced in the enquiry either to prove the charges or to prove the documents. The copy of the report of the Flying Squad, which was relied on by the enquiry officer, was not given to the petitioner in time. Even the report of the Flying Squad was not produced in the inquiry, though basis of the charge-sheet is the same. In fact, no evidence, either documentary or oral, was adduced to prove the charges. It is submitted by the writ petitioner that after the receipt of the memo of charges, he demanded relevant documents in support of the charges framed by the enquiry officer and in spite of demand, the inquiry officer did not supply the same. The enquiry officer did not summon any prosecution witnesses to substantiate the charges and even the presenting officer was also not bothered to produce and examine the departmental witnesses. Even though the report of the Flying Squad was relied on, it was not proved in the enquiry. No effective opportunity was given by the inquiry officer to the writ petitioner to disprove the allegations made against him or cross-examine the author of the report. Only a farce of an inquiry was conducted. Even though the report of the Flying Squad was relied on, it was not proved in the enquiry. No effective opportunity was given by the inquiry officer to the writ petitioner to disprove the allegations made against him or cross-examine the author of the report. Only a farce of an inquiry was conducted. A close look into the enquiry proceedings and the findings of the enquiry officer would show that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and there was no evidence adduced in the enquiry to prove the charges. It is true that the question of disproving the charges will arise only if the charges are proved by adducing either oral or documentary evidence. But such evidence is also absent to prove the charges, even though some documents were produced. 3. After perusing the enquiry file, the learned Single Judge found as follows: "10. On perusal of the enquiry report, I find that not a single witness was examined, in fact, no evidence was brought before the enquiry officer in support of the charges framed. Once charges framed against any Government employee it is mandatory that it should be proved by adducing oral/ documentary evidence. A delinquent employee cannot be held guilty if charges are not proved. In the present case, the manner in which the departmental enquiry was conducted is indicative of the fact that simply charges were framed but these charges were not proved. Even the document which has been relied upon by the enquiry officer, i.e. report dated 10.12.2001 was not produced. From the records it is apparent that it was not available in the department." 4. The fact that no oral evidence was adduced is not disputed. 5. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment*, found that the second show cause notice issued was nothing but a formality. After considering the contentions, the learned Single Judge found as follows: "13. The charges framed against the petitioner related to 1 to 17 current bills. The enquiry report was submitted with respect to 17 to 19 current bills. The second show cause notice relates to 14 to 18 and current bills which are not mentioned in the intial charge. Some new charges relating to forged and fabricated entry in the measurement book have also been added which were not the part of the charges. The enquiry report was submitted with respect to 17 to 19 current bills. The second show cause notice relates to 14 to 18 and current bills which are not mentioned in the intial charge. Some new charges relating to forged and fabricated entry in the measurement book have also been added which were not the part of the charges. For these charges petitioner was not given any opportunity to prove his innocence, no enquiry was conducted for those charges for which second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. ........ In the second show cause notice it is clearly mentioned that so far punishment is concerned, decision was already taken. Since absolute opinion was already there, formality of second show cause notice cannot cure apparent illegality in the order of punishment." 6. After going through the charge- sheet, proceedings of enquiry and the second show cause notice, the learned Single Judge correctly found that the action was taken on a prejudged opinion making the enquiry and other proceedings a mockery. After considering the enquiry proceedings, we have no hesitation to hold that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. We further hold that the findings of the enquiry officer is not based on any acceptable evidence adduced in the enquiry and that the misconduct alleged was not proved in the enquiry. We also find that there is no application of mind by the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order, as he has not considered the charges, evidence of findings of the enquiry officer, etc. We, therefore, fully agree with the views of the learned Single Judge. No valid grounds are urged in the appeal memorandum or during argument to come to a different view. Hence, we dismiss the appeal.