JUDGEMENT Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent Board. 2. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally by a resolution dated 30.11.1996 on the charge that materials were accepted beyond 15.1.1983 for personal wrongful gain to the petitioner and wrongful loss to the Board contrary to the Board Resolution dated 10.1.1983. The petitioner in the departmental proceeding took a specific objection that the Boards memo was never served on him. 3. The enquiry report reveals that no evidence was led by the management to rebut this argument of the petitioner. The enquiry officer concluded that there was no evidence on record that the order was communicated to the petitioner. The enquiry officer, however, proceeded on a general assumption to arrive at a conclusion that a subsequent telegram dated 7.3.1983 communicated to all must have been received by the petitioner also. On this followed the order of punishment withholding 5% of pension since the petitioner retired during the pendency of the appeal on 30.11.1996. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in his reply to the second show cause notice after submission of the enquiry report the petitioner specifically took the objection apart from the defence in his reply to the charges that the memo, dated 10.1.1983 was never communicated to him, much less the subsequent telegram dated 7.3.1983. The order of punishment dated 8.11.2000 is cryptic and does not refer to or consider this objection. He further submits that once the enquiry officer arrived at the finding that the memo. Dated 10.1.1983 was never communicated, there was no material to sustain the finding of guilt. The enquiry officer on basis of surmises and conjectures only arrived at the presumption that the subsequent telegram dated 7.3.1983 must have been made available to the petitioner. Even if that be so, the instruction was not to receive supplies with effect from 15.1.1983. A telegram for that purpose dated 7.3.1983 serves no purpose at all. In any view of the matter, in the departmental enquiry the presenting officer did not lead any evidence to demonstrate that the memo. Dated 10.1.1983 was served. The petitioner was proceeded with in a criminal case also on the same charges arising out of Saharsa P.S. Case No. 4/85 (Special Case No. 10/91) leading to his exoneration on 10.8.2000. 5. In any view of the matter, in the departmental enquiry the presenting officer did not lead any evidence to demonstrate that the memo. Dated 10.1.1983 was served. The petitioner was proceeded with in a criminal case also on the same charges arising out of Saharsa P.S. Case No. 4/85 (Special Case No. 10/91) leading to his exoneration on 10.8.2000. 5. Learned Counsel for the Board sought to persuade this Court from certain statements in the counter affidavit to demonstrate that the petitioner was aware of Boards memo. Dated 10.1.1983. 6. On facts, what emerges is that the petitioner in his defence to the charges took a specific stand that the memo. Dated 10.1.1983 or 7.3.1983 were never communicated to him. The department led no evidence to rebut the same. The enquiry officer arrived at the finding that there was nothing to suggest that Memo. Dated 10.1.1983 prohibiting receipt of supplies after 15.1.1983 was ever communicated to the petitioner. The enquiry officer then proceeded on surmises and conjectures with regard to a telegram dated 7.3.1983, presumed to have been communicated to the petitioner, not to receive supplies after 15.1.1983. 7. To this Court, the question arises what was to be prevented on 15.1.1983 from being done by a subsequent telegram of 7.3.1983 when the time period of not receiving supplies had long before lapsed. 8. The petitioner in his reply to the second show cause notice again took this specific objection of non-communication of memo. Dated 10.1.1983. The order of punishment does not deal with this objection at all. 9. On the same allegations the petitioner was subjected to a criminal prosecution. The judgement of the criminal court is appended at annexure-11 to the writ petition. The Department failed to produce evidence and materials to demonstrate from the dispatch registers etc. that the order dated 10.1.1983 restraining receipt of supplies was ever communicated to the petitioner leading to his acquittal on the very same charges. 10. It is, thus, found that the charges in the departmental proceeding and the criminal prosecution were the same. The departmental proceeding alleged administrative indiscipline of receipt of supplies after 15.1.1983, on the allegations therein of wrongful loss to the Board and corresponding wrongful gain to the petitioner. A criminal case was also filed with like allegations. 10. It is, thus, found that the charges in the departmental proceeding and the criminal prosecution were the same. The departmental proceeding alleged administrative indiscipline of receipt of supplies after 15.1.1983, on the allegations therein of wrongful loss to the Board and corresponding wrongful gain to the petitioner. A criminal case was also filed with like allegations. In both the proceedings the Department miserably failed to prove communication of the order dated 10.1.1983 not to receive supplies after 15.1.1983. This Court has already held that order dated 7.3.1983 not to receive supplies after 15.1.1983 is a meaningless piece of document. 11. In a departmental enquiry, strict rules of evidence may not apply, but fairness in procedure shall still require a finding based on some evidence to sustain a punishment. 12. The petitioner has been visited with a punishment of withholding of 5% of his pension without formal proof of the allegations against him. The finding in the departmental enquiry was based on surmises and conjectures with no evidence, whatsoever, in support of it. The finding is classified as perverse. The Supreme Court in its judgement (Ram Dayal Rai V/s. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ors.) has held that even reduction of 5% pension was a very serious matter for a Government servant in the evening of his life having no other source of income. 13. This Court, therefore, holds that the order of punishment dated 8.11.2000 is vitiated. It is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to his entire arrears of pension to be paid within a maximum period of 2 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 14. The writ application is allowed.