Judgment :- (1) The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the second show- cause notice dated 2nd June, 2002. During the pendency of this writ petition with the leave of Court the petitioner made his representation to the second show-cause notice. Thereafter, the final order removing him from service was passed on 12th September, 2002. He preferred a statutory appeal, which was dismissed on 8th March, 2003. With the leave of Court he has filed an application registered as CAN 3280 of 2003 bringing on record the subsequent event also challenging the final order and the appellate order. (2) The charges framed against the writ petitioner were as follows: "Thus, it appears that Sri Bidyut Kumar Paria, S.S. willfully and motivatedly did not disclose the facts to his superior after his inspection on 19.10.2000, causing financial loss to the Board. Further, it also appears that Sri Paria was called on at Corporate Vigilance Cell on 11.1.2001 for interrogation and it appears from the statement dated 11.1.2001 that Sri Paria did not furnish full and correct information when asked for, but gave misinformation. Such conduct of Sri Paria, if proved, is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Board and is in violation of Regulation 38 of WBSEBESR and tantamounts to an act of misconduct and breach of discipline in terms of Regulations 61 (d), 61(e), 61(i) and 61 (p) of WBSEBESR Regulations." (3) The enquiry officer has held that the charges were duly proved. The disciplinary authority based on report that passed the order of removal. The appellate authority did not interfere. (4) The charge-sheet itself indicates that the inspection dated 19th October, 2000, carried out by the writ petitioner was pursuant to a verbal direction issued by the Assistant Engineer asking him to inspect the meter/premises of consumer No.I-99028 and to furnish a report. The petitioner inspected the premises and the meter in question upon prior notice to the consumer which would appear from the averments made by the writ petitioner at page 24 thereof. There is no denial as regards the fact that the inspection carried out by the writ petitioner was upon prior notice to the consumer. The petitioner inspected the premises and the meter in question upon prior notice to the consumer which would appear from the averments made by the writ petitioner at page 24 thereof. There is no denial as regards the fact that the inspection carried out by the writ petitioner was upon prior notice to the consumer. It appears from the enquiry report that the P.W. 1 Bagchi deposed that upon inspection on 24th November, 2000, the meter in question was found unworking which vindicates the report filed by the writ petitioner who had stated that the meter was sticky. Four witnesses were examined but no one has deposed that on 19th October, 2000, there was any unauthorised consumption from the aforesaid meter. Those four witnesses, as a matter of fact, visited the spot on 24th November, 2000, and found that there was unauthorised consumption through that meter. In the absence of any definite evidence to show that an 19th October, 2000, itself there was unauthorised consumption from that meter it is not possible to find that the writ petitioner was negligent either deliberately or otherwise or failed to detect the unauthorised consumption. The fact that the writ petitioner inspected the premises upon notice is also very significant because this probablies that the unauthorised consumption, if any, might have been removed at the time when the inspection took place rendering it impossible for him to find out any such unauthorised consumption. (5) I have called upon the learned advocate appearing for the WBSEB to find out the evidence from the record that on 19th October, 2000, there was unauthorised consumption from that meter, to which his answer was that there is no such evidence. When that kind of evidence is not there on the record, the whole finding of the enquiry officer is without any basis, and is, therefore, perverse. The order of the disciplinary authority based on that enquiry report is equally bad and perverse. (6) This writ petition, therefore, succeeds. (7) The order of removal passed on 12th September, 2002, and the appellate order passed on 8th March, 2002, are both quashed. (8) The petitioner is re-instated in service. He shall be entitled to full back wages with all benefits. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition succeeds