JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty order dated 28.02.2011 and the appellate order dated 06.01.2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Female Mazdoor on 08.02.1989. On 25.06.2008, a Charge Memo was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that she had produced a forged certificate and procured appointment by producing the forged document. The petitioner submitted her reply on 31.07.2008. An enquiry was initiated and enquiry report dated 26.10.2010 was submitted. A second show-cause dated 31.12.2010 was served upon the petitioner and since, reply to second show-cause was not found satisfactory, the penalty of removal from service was passed on 28.02.2011. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner by order dated 06.01.2012. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating as under: “8. That it is stated that Tilok Mondal resident of village Ayodhaya, P.O. Guniara, P.S. Nituria, District Purulia was a land looser, his lands were acquired by the Government of Bihar for Damodar Valley Corporation, Panchet Project and he was a displaced person. Tilok Mondal had two sons namely, Tarapada Mondal and Shyamapada Mondal and seven daughters namely, Bharti Mondal, Radhika Mondal, Zulu Mondal, Paru Mondal, Sandhya Mondal, Monju Mondal and Budhu Mondal. 9. That it is stated that the petitioner of the present writ application married Dhiren Mondal, son of late Pravas Mondal of village Talberiya, P.S. Panchet (Chirkunda), District: Dhanbad. 10. That it is stated that Dhiren Mondal endorsed his name to suppress the material facts on the basis of false and fabricated documents in Damodar Valley Corporation panel for employment in the list of displaced persons showing himself as son of Tilok Mondal and his name was at serial no. 33 of the panel. 11. That it is stated that the death of Dhiren Mondal the petitioner succeeded to obtain employment in Damodar Valley Corporation fraudulently suppressing the material facts on the basis of false and fabricated documents showing herself as daughter in law of Tilok Mondal all though, she was the third married daughter of Tilok Mondal. 12. 33 of the panel. 11. That it is stated that the death of Dhiren Mondal the petitioner succeeded to obtain employment in Damodar Valley Corporation fraudulently suppressing the material facts on the basis of false and fabricated documents showing herself as daughter in law of Tilok Mondal all though, she was the third married daughter of Tilok Mondal. 12. That it is stated that the own brothers of the petitioner namely Tarapada Mondal and Shyampada Mondal son of Tilok Mondal made written complaint on 08.05.2007 to the Chairman, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata and on 12.06.2007 to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata, both complaint petitions are very clear and on the basis of the complaint petition the departmental enquiry proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. 13. That it is stated that the appointment offer vide letter no. PL/DDP/Panchet/518 dated 09.02.1989 was given to the petitioner in group “C” on certain condition. One of the conditions at Clause 4 of appointment offer read as follows; “the decision to appoint you on probation is based on the information given by you in the descriptive role, in event of any of the information so supplied is found to be false, your employment shall be terminated without assigning any reason whatsoever”. 14. That it is stated that after receiving the complaint of Tarapada Mondal and Shyampada Mondal against the petitioner to the Damodar Valley Corporation, the corporate office issued instruction to initiate proceeding by issuing show cause etc. to the petitioner. 15. That it is stated that the competent authority issued show cause to the petitioner and thereafter on receipt of the reply and dissatisfied with the same, the departmental proceeding was initiated. The petitioner appointed Shri H.B. Mondal in her defense to defend her in the departmental proceeding and the respondents gave full opportunity to the petitioner to defend her case by producing documents and adducing oral evidences. 16. That it is stated the complaint petition dated 12.06.2007 addressed to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata copy to the Director (HRD) and the Secretary, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata discloses the material facts. The certificate of Mukhiya of Bengagoria, Gram Panchayat and the certificate of Dr. 16. That it is stated the complaint petition dated 12.06.2007 addressed to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata copy to the Director (HRD) and the Secretary, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata discloses the material facts. The certificate of Mukhiya of Bengagoria, Gram Panchayat and the certificate of Dr. G.C. Kuindu of Nirsa, Dhanbad dated 11.04.1983 discloses that Dhiren Mondal, son of Pravas Mondal is resident of village Talberia, P.S. Panchet (Chirkunda), District: Dhanbad expired on 11.04.1983 completely falsifies the entire documents and the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner is the wife Dhiren Mondal and Dhiren Mondal is the son of Pravas Mondal and not of Tilok Mondal resident of Talberia, P.S. Panchet, District: Dhanbad not the resident of village Ayodhaya, P.S. Neturia, District: Purulia West Bengal. 17. That it is stated that the Block Development Officer of Neturia block vide memo no. 1491 dated 31.12.2007 issued letter to the Senior Divisional Engineer (C), Damodar Valley Corporation, Panchet that Tilok Mondal of village Ayodhaya, P.O. Guriara, P.S. Neturia, had left behind only two sons namely Tarapada Mondal and Shyampada Mondal both sons of late Tilok Mondal of village Ayodhaya, P.S. Neturia, District: Purilia, West Bengal. 18. That it is stated that the petitioner submitted her attestation form in Damodar Valley Corporation on 02.03.1989 wherein, she declared herself that her husband's name is late Dhiren Mondal and her father's name is Tilok Mondal and thereafter in the year 13.12.1990 she declared Tilok Mondal as her father in law aged about 61 years.” 4. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the specific provision as contained in Regulation 98(2)(f) & (g) of the Damodar Valley Corporation Service Regulations, 1983 has not been followed by the department, while conducting departmental proceeding against the petitioner. He has further submitted that though the complainants namely, Tarapada Mondal and Shyamapada Mondal, at whose instance the charge was framed against the petitioner, appeared before the enquiry officer however, their statements were not recorded by the enquiry officer. The enquiry report is cryptic and improper and it does not disclose any application of mind in so far as, the evidence taken in the domestic enquiry as well as defence taken by the petitioner, are concerned. The enquiry report is cryptic and improper and it does not disclose any application of mind in so far as, the evidence taken in the domestic enquiry as well as defence taken by the petitioner, are concerned. The proceeding in the domestic enquiry has been continued in contravention of Regulation 98(2)(f) & (g) of the Damodar Valley Corporation Service Regulations, 1983. He has further submitted that in the absence of any legal evidence produced and proved during the enquiry in support of the complaint made by the abovenamed two persons and without ascertaining the actual facts, the penalty order of removal from service passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. 6. Per Contra, Mr. S.K. Ughal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner played fraud and she has submitted a false certificate. It has come in the evidence of the complainants, who have filed complaint that the person namely, Tilok Mondal was not the father-in-law of the petitioner and the petitioner obtained appointment by misleading the authorities and therefore, after conducting a properly constituted departmental enquiry, the order of penalty has been passed. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that the following charges were framed against the petitioner: Article-I: “That at the time of appointment, you have submitted the Death Certificate of late Dhiren Mondal issued by Dr. Sahadev Mukherjee, Nabagram, P.O. Nidih, Dist. Purulia dated 30.09.1986, the father's name of Late Dhiren Mondal was mentioned as Lt. Tilok Mondal. Where as in another death certificate of Late Dhiren Mondal submitted by both the sons of late Tilok Mondal issued by Dr. G.C. Kundu, Nirsa Chatti, Dhanbad dated 11.04.1983, the father's name of Late Dhiren Mondal is mentioned as Shri Pravas Mondal. There by you have mislead the management by submitting false certificate for obtaining employment in DVC. Article-II: That you got the employment in DVC under Displayed quota against producing false documents and misleading management in respect of father's name of Late Dhiren Mondal.” 8. During the enquiry, in which notices were issued to the complainants on 01.02.2010 and 23.02.2010 and on 20.03.2010, the complainants appeared before the enquiry officer however, their statements have not been recorded during the enquiry proceeding. During the enquiry, in which notices were issued to the complainants on 01.02.2010 and 23.02.2010 and on 20.03.2010, the complainants appeared before the enquiry officer however, their statements have not been recorded during the enquiry proceeding. No explanation has been offered by the department for not recording the statements of the complainants, at whose instance the domestic enquiry against the petitioner was initiated. I further find that after a lapse of more than 19 years, an enquiry has been initiated at the instance of the complainants, whose statements were not even recorded by the enquiry officer and thus, the petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine them. 9. In “State of M.P. vs. Bani Singh and another”, reported in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 738, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “4. The appeal against the order dated December 16, 1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 197577. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.” 10. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.” 10. I find that initiation of the departmental enquiry after a lapse of 19 years was not proper particularly, in view of the fact that no legal evidence was brought on record by the department during the departmental enquiry to establish that the petitioner was not the daughter-in-law of the said Tilok Mondal. Only on the basis of complaint made by the complainants namely, Tarapada Mondal and Shyamapada Mondal, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and a finding has been recorded that the petitioner had obtained appointment by misleading the department. The enquiry report does not deal with any issue and the manner in which the enquiry officer has recorded his conclusion, does not indicate any application of mind by the enquiry officer. I am of the opinion that no reasonable person would have reached a conclusion that the charge against the petitioner is proved. The procedure adopted by the enquiry officer for reaching at the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner was proved, was erroneous. 11. In “M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India and others”, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.” 12. I further find that under the Regulation 98 read with Regulation 96 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Service Regulations, 1983, there was a specific duty cast upon the department to conduct enquiry in the cases, in which, a penalty of removal from service is passed. The procedure prescribed under rule 98 has apparently not been followed in the present case. Regulation 96(vi): “Removal from the service of the Corporation, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. Regulation 98(2)(f): At the conclusion of the Enquiry, the Enquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the Enquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefor. If in the opinion of such authority the proceedings of the Enquiry establish charges different from those originally framed it may record findings on such charges. Provided that findings on such charges shall not be recorded unless the employee has admitted the facts constituting them or has had an opportunity of defending himself against them. Regulation 98(2)(g): The record of the Enquiry shall include (i) the charges framed against the employee and the statement of allegations furnished to him under clause (a) above; (ii) his written statement of defence, if any; (iii) the oral evidence taken in the course of the Enquiry; (iv) the documentary evidence considered in the course of the Enquiry; (v) the orders if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiring Authority in regard to the Enquiry; and (vi) a report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefor.” 13. In “State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha”, reported in (2010)2 SCC 772 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, “30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha”, reported in (2010)2 SCC 772 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, “30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service”. 14. From the reply to the second show-cause notice, I find that the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation, taking a plea that even the death certificate, which is taken against the petitioner, was not proved in the domestic enquiry. The doctor namely, Dr. G.C. Kundu was not examined by the department. The petitioner took a specific plea that the medical certificate was a manufactured document. I find neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority have addressed themselves to these aspects of the matter and therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 28.02.2011 and 06.01.2012 are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. Since, the petitioner was removed from service illegally by the respondents, she would be entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages. 15. In “Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.) and others”, reported in 2013 (11) Scale 268, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, “17. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.” 16. This writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.