JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. By virtue of Annexure-11 dated 20.6.1990 the General Manager of the respondent Gaya Cotton and Jute Mills, a Unit of the National Textile Corporation Limited, has dismissed the present petitioner from service for certain charges of omission and commission, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. Petitioner is seeking not only quashing of the said order but also reinstatement with full back wages. 2. Some facts which have been narrated in the writ application are that the petitioner was employed as a driller under the respondents and was working in the mill located at Gaya. Occurrence took place on 24.3.1986 where the workmen of the Jute Mill indulged in violence, sabotage and manhandling of staff and officers. The Deputy Manager, Industrial Relation, suspended 19 workmen for the alleged occurrence and proceedings were initiated. This petitioner was one of the persons who was issued a charge-sheet on 16.6.1986. Details of the charges are available in Annexure-2. 3. Petitioner in his show cause pleaded innocence. He denied all the charges to be baseless and fabricated. But not being satisfied with the explanation, a decision was taken to hold a domestic enquiry. Witnesses were examined. According to the petitioner, none of the four witnesses examined by the management took his name to be a part of the crowd which indulged in vandalism or assault. But despite the same, the petitioner was held guilty by the disciplinary authority and dismissed from service. He submits that similarly situated three other workmen namely, Ganesh Prasad, Dharmnath Mishra and Basudeo Jha were reinstated but since the petitioner was an active member of the Union, he was victimized by the Management for his lawful trade union activities. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that it is a clear case of discrimination. Different kinds of punishment orders have come to be passed with regard to the charged workmen, who were proceeded depending on the whims and fancies of the management. With no evidence coming on record against the petitioner in the enquiry, he was still picked up for the punishment of dismissal, where as with similar material and evidence three other employees were reinstated. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has brought on record various evidences which were led during the course of enquiry. With no evidence coming on record against the petitioner in the enquiry, he was still picked up for the punishment of dismissal, where as with similar material and evidence three other employees were reinstated. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has brought on record various evidences which were led during the course of enquiry. The Court was taken through the evidence to reinforce the argument that none of the witnesses produced on behalf of the management could pin-pointedly state that the petitioner had committed any of the misdemeanour with which he was charged with. Despite the same and in absence of any clear finding by the enquiry officer, the order of punishment has come to be passed against the petitioner. 6. The enquiry report has been brought on record with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The enquiry report is dated 20.4.1989 and is annexed as Annexure-E. What is relevant is the conclusion which has been reached by the enquiry officer, which has significance and relevance for adjudication of the dispute raised in the present writ application. The enquiry officer has stated that four official witnesses on behalf of the management have supported the incident but none of them have categorically taken the name of the petitioner with the kind of misdemeanour with which he was charged. However, he goes on to say that Exts.-1 and 2 are complaints which were made in writing after the incidence and the name of the petitioner had figured in the same. This was treated to be clinching evidence of misdemeanour of the petitioner and his role in the occurrence. 7. Reading of the narration of the incidence may give a bad look to the whole episode but when large number of workers were alleged to have participated in the said incidence, and when the petitioner was also being charged for being party to such violence, evidence of his participation and his misdemeanour must specifically emerge in no uncertain terms. Mere fact that name of the petitioner had also been mentioned in the initial complaint may not be enough. The enquiry must correlate to the big list of charge which came to be drawn up against the petitioner. Mere fact that name of the petitioner had also been mentioned in the initial complaint may not be enough. The enquiry must correlate to the big list of charge which came to be drawn up against the petitioner. If no evidence of the kind against the petitioner emerged during the course of enquiry and none of the management witnesses pin-pointedly stated about the role played by the present petitioner, then merely declaring him guilty of the charge on the ground that his name had figured in a complaint, is not sufficient evidence in the eye of law to award the punishment of dismissal. 8. Reading of the enquiry report, coupled with the evidence of the management witnesses does give an impression to this court that the petitioner was picked up by the management for special kind of treatment probably to teach him a lesson rather than to impose punishment on the basis of findings which had emerged during the course of enquiry. 9. Legal objection taken on behalf of the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ application on the ground of alternative remedy against the order of dismissal cannot be entertained at such a belated stage when writ application was already admitted way back in the year 1991 and the case is being finally heard and disposed of after two decades. Plea of alternative remedy at the stage of final hearing would neither be in the interest of justice nor fair to the petitioner. 10. In absence of any evidence to link the petitioner with the set of charges in the enquiry report, the culpability of the petitioner is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the order of dismissal passed against him is not based on any legal finding and it requires interference. 11. The impugned order dated 20.6.1990 contained in Annexure-11, is hereby quashed. More so, when there is a clear case of discrimination vis-a-vis other employees and present petitioner with regard to kind of punishment which has come to visit them. The petitioner has been singled out despite no clear findings against him for the punishment of dismissal, whereas other employees with similar evidence stood reinstated by the management. 12. The writ application is allowed with a direction to the management that the consequence of quashing of the order of punishment will flow in favour of the petitioner as per law.