JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel parties. 2. The appeal is against the judgment dated 20th April, 2012 by which the delinquent officer's writ petition pursued by her widow, being C.W.J.C No. 1746 of 1998 (R) was allowed and the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the husband of the present respondent was set aside on the ground that in departmental enquiry proceeding, the finding committee report and the preliminary enquiry were the basis for holding the officer guilty but copies of those reports were not provided to the delinquent officer even after repeated request. It was held that it violated the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that while imposing the punishment the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority did not consider the relevant material facts and imposed the harshest possible punishment like dismissal from service. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that it is a settled law that firstly the fact finding report and the preliminary enquiry report are not required to be provided to the delinquent and the disciplinary proceeding starts from the issuance of the charge-sheet and thereafter, recording the evidence by the disciplinary authority or even by enquiry officer. The respondent-delinquent officer further failed to establish any prejudice which may have been caused to him because of non-providing the preliminary enquiry report and the fact finding report. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the delinquent officer was of the high rank of Divisional Engineer and he instigated the mob resulting into manhandling by the mob with one senior officer, V.K. Bansal. In view of above reasons, the punishment was proportionate to the delinquency as to looking to the position of the officer. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 1854 , 2006 (7) SCC 558 and also submitted that gratuity in 100% can be withheld in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 1854 . 5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that though there was charge levelled against the delinquent with respect to instigating the mob but the memorandum of charge clearly says that the delinquent officer merely said to mob that he has also given written complaint to management but no action has been taken by the management. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that though there was charge levelled against the delinquent with respect to instigating the mob but the memorandum of charge clearly says that the delinquent officer merely said to mob that he has also given written complaint to management but no action has been taken by the management. It is also submitted that the mob was already there with their leader, Satish Kumar Singh, whose name has been mentioned even in the Articles of charges, and the mob was also demanding resignation of the officer on the spot and investigation into the allegations and the matter was being discussed by the Manager (D & D) with the workmen. Therefore, it is not the delinquent officer who instigated the other workmen. However, it has been alleged that he all of a sudden appeared on the scene and alleged to have addressed the unruly assembly and has merely said that he has also filed written complaint about some workmen working in the same department but the management has not taken action against his complaint. It has been alleged that mob started moving towards office where Sri V.K. Bansal was there and mob spontaneously demanded the resignation of Sri V.K. Bansal. The appellate authority in its finding has recorded that, that was the only allegation against the delinquent officer and there is no charge as such that he himself had assaulted the officers or accompanied the workmen who went to Mr. R.N. Chatterjee and manhandled the officer. Therefore, even at the place where the incident occurred admittedly the respondent-delinquent officer was not present. Therefore, only informing the mob that he has also submitted written complaint is not sufficient instigation so as to manhandle anybody. Mere spontaneous reaction by the mob in absence of the delinquent officer cannot make the delinquent officer responsible. It is also submitted that the disciplinary authority, who is required to assess the material on record and particularly evidence, has not based its finding on the basis of any oral evidence or any documentary evidence except enquiry report and the fact finding report. It is also submitted that the disciplinary authority, who is required to assess the material on record and particularly evidence, has not based its finding on the basis of any oral evidence or any documentary evidence except enquiry report and the fact finding report. The representation submitted by the delinquent officer clearly indicate that he repeatedly demanded and made it clear that from these reports he will be in a position to show his innocence and that fact has been taken note of by the appellate authority and the appellate authority has also taken note of the fact that the only witness whose evidence has been referred by the appellate authority is Mr. Chatterjee who had inimical relation with the delinquent officer. The disciplinary authority has not based finding against the delinquent officer on the basis of any witness including the evidence of Mr. Chatterjee but merely relied upon above two reports, copies of which were not given to delinquent officer. Therefore, because of that reason only this departmental proceeding was initiated against the delinquent officer. It is also submitted that the punishment on the face of it was shockingly disproportionate. It is submitted that even the role of the respondent-delinquent officer as has been alleged is only that he gave one small address to the already gathered workmen and nothing more, neither any assault, nor accompanying the mob, nor incident occurred in his presence, nor his said statement can be believed to have instigated the workmen to the extent of beating or demanding resignation of the officer. 6. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons recorded by learned Single Judge. Normally, not providing the preliminary enquiry report and fact finding report cannot be a ground for setting aside the order passed in the departmental proceeding. But, in this case, these documents are most relevant and foundational fact because of the reason that the disciplinary authority in his order nowhere considered the statement of the any witnesses who were produced by the department and, therefore, has not relied upon the statements of said witnesses for holding the delinquent officer guilty. The disciplinary authority merely upheld the finding recorded in the enquiry reports and that too without there being support of oral evidence which is apparent from the entire brief order passed by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority merely upheld the finding recorded in the enquiry reports and that too without there being support of oral evidence which is apparent from the entire brief order passed by the disciplinary authority. The delinquent officer in his representation repeatedly mentioned that he be given the copy of said reports and he also submitted that in those reports there is nothing against him. It is also submitted that in enquiry report the finding is entirely different from the charge. This aspect has also not been considered by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority. However the appellate authority at one place tried to justify the finding of the disciplinary authority on the solitary evidence of Sri Chaterjee . However, according to learned counsel for the appellant himself altogether twelve witnesses were examined but there is only reference of evidence of one witness Mr. Chaterjee. 7. Be that as it may be, none of the witnesses has been relied upon by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority and that clearly indicate that in fact the enquiry was totally influenced by the fact finding report and preliminary report, copies of which have not been provided to the delinquent officer. With respect to giving of some short speech that too only indicating that the delinquent officer has also said that he had given a written complaint to the management for which no action was taken, it cannot be said that he instigated the mob to demand immediate enquiry and the resignation of the officer. Contrary to it, already workmen were there as mob and they were demanding the resignation of the officer, is an admitted fact, as mentioned in the charge-sheet. 8. In view of above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that it is a case where the serious prejudice has been caused to the writ petitioner because of non-providing the enquiry report and the fact finding report, the sole basis for the order impugns. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that in peculiar facts of the case non-providing of the preliminary enquiry report and fact finding report caused serious prejudice to the writ petitioner. Apart from above, the disciplinary authority not considered and relied upon any of the evidence of any of the witness produced by the department. Apart from above, the disciplinary authority not considered and relied upon any of the evidence of any of the witness produced by the department. According to the learned counsel for the appellant 12 witnesses were examined and none of the evidence of the witnesses has been discussed much less to relying upon. Therefore, also on the ground, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Hence, the L.P.A, having no merit is dismissed. The consequential benefits has ordered by the learned Single Judge shall be given to the widow of the deceased employee within a period of two months.