Judgment 1. The petitioner, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 08.04.1998 passed by the first respondent in T.C. No.1685/82.Admn.8 as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner was working as Senior Stores Assistant, Branch Office, S. Kota in Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited (for short, ‘the Corporation’). He was responsible for maintaining of stock registers with invoice numbers and other relevant entries. A separate register was maintained showing the stock of empty gunny bags. It appears that during Shandies, there used to be huge rush and demand for supply of empty gunny bags and that the petitioner was supplying empty gunny bags under acknowledgement and sometimes with invoices and sometimes even without invoices. However, he used to keep all the acknowledgments in the stock register of 1980. On his transfer, he handed over charge on 14.12.1981 to one Mr. Seshaiah and a charge-list was prepared. According to the petitioner, the charge list contains acknowledgements at Item No.9 of page No.2 and Item No.17 of Pages No.3. 3. While so, alleging that the petitioner misappropriated the Corporation funds by causing huge deficit on the empty gunny bags, the third respondent issued a charge-memo dated 10.07.1989 to the petitioner, framing the following charges:- Charge No.1:- that Sri L. Ranga Rao reduced the balance of empties of new, once used and sugar gunnies in the stock register, 1980 fictitiously without raising any invoices to an extent of 4602, 7259 and 511 valuing Rs.24,712.74, Rs.21,777.00 and Rs.2,555.00 respectively and thus caused huge deficits on the empties. Charge No.2:- that he failed to handover 6549 Nos. of once used gunnies valuing Rs.4416.00, 136 sugar gunnies valuing Rs.680/-, torned gunnies 18432 valuing Rs.18,432.00 and 6500 new gunnies valuing Rs.4485.00 and 1017 palmrabh baskets valuing Rs.203.40 and thus caused deficit of Rs.28,126.40 in the empties for the year 1981. Charge No.3:- that he caused deficits empty gunnies account during the year 1980 and 1981 valuing Rs.77,171.74 with mala fide intention which amounts misappropriation of the corporation funds by cheating the corporation. 4. Charge No.3:- that he caused deficits empty gunnies account during the year 1980 and 1981 valuing Rs.77,171.74 with mala fide intention which amounts misappropriation of the corporation funds by cheating the corporation. 4. Enquiry was conducted, Enquiry Officer submitted his report and the first respondent, by proceedings dated 08.04.1997, provisionally ordered for dismissal the petitioner from service holding as follows: “All the three charges framed against him were held proved by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer held that an amount of Rs.35,667.78 has to be recovered from the charged individual. Thus, it is clearly established that he misappropriated corporation funds by way of misutilisation of sale proceeds of the empty gunnies. It is therefore proved his criminal bent of mind in misutilising value of empty gunnies for his personal benefits. In view of the above discussion, it is established that Sri L. Ranga Rao misappropriated Corporation funds by way of empty gunnies to a tune of Rs.35,667.78 as a result, it is provisionally concluded to dismiss the employee from Corporation Service without prejudice to recovery of Rs.35,667.78 with 18% interest from the date of detection of the case. Therefore, Sri L. Ranga Rao, formerly Sr. St. Asst. GCC Ltd., S. Kota (Now at Araku) and present Sr. Asst. GPCMS, Parvathipuram is hereby directed to submit his written explanation to the PCO within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order, why the punishment indicated in the PCO should not be confirmed, if explanation is not received within the stipulated time, orders will be passed on the material available on record. A copy of the Enquiry Report is enclosed” 5. The said order of dismissal was served on the respondent on 03.06.1997 and 15 days time was given to him for submitting his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.09.1997 and on 08.04.1998, the first respondent passed the impugned order in Roc.No.1685/82/Admn.8, holding as follows:- “On careful examination of the various contentions raised by the delinquent, it is found that the delinquent employee directed from the standard procedure in bookkeeping. He could not adduce any evidence of instructions if any from the Manager during the enquiry to issue empties without invoices. In such a case, the charged employee is solely responsible for improper maintenance of stock register 1981. He could not adduce any evidence of instructions if any from the Manager during the enquiry to issue empties without invoices. In such a case, the charged employee is solely responsible for improper maintenance of stock register 1981. If there is no written instructions on record to show that he was instructed to give empties to CCPA without invoice etc., then he only has to be held responsible. He was given opportunity to see records in between May, 1982 and to December, 1982, but he avoided. Later the stock register got misplaced and it was rebuilt based on the cash book, the basic document for accounts matter and other related records. He cannot take advantage of this situation at this stage. All the charged are held proved against him and the charged proved are grave in nature. In the light of the above facts, to meet the ends of justice, Sri L. Ranga Rao, formerly Senior Stores Assistant, S. Kota Branch is reverted to the lower cadre of Junior Assistant permanently as a measure of punishment and the charges proved against him held out the act of serious misconduct on the part of the delinquent employee. He should remit the amount of Rs.35,667/- with 18% interest from the date of notice of deficit till the entire amounts recovered in full. The period of suspension undergone by the delinquent in the instant case is treated as diesnon. Necessary entries should be recorded in the service register as well as register of punishment.” 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service of the petitioner falls under Grade-V category whose disciplinary authority is the second respondent, but the impugned order is passed by the first respondent who is the appellate authority and as such, the impugned order is contra to the service rules of the Corporation. It is also his submission that the second respondent, having ordered de novo enquiry, ought to have appointed another Enquiry Officer or ought to have continued the same Enquiry Officer, but he himself conducted enquiry which is against the service rules of the Corporation. It is also his submission that the second respondent, having ordered de novo enquiry, ought to have appointed another Enquiry Officer or ought to have continued the same Enquiry Officer, but he himself conducted enquiry which is against the service rules of the Corporation. It is further submitted that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice as the enquiry report and the copies of the statements of the witnesses were not furnished to the petitioner and that the petitioner cannot be held responsible since there is no evidence to fix up the responsibility on him inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer himself has found that the relevant documents, i.e., the original stock registers etc., are not available on record. It is further submitted that the alleged misappropriation by the petitioner was in the year 1980 and the first Enquiry Officer was appointed in the year 1981 and no enquiry was conducted till 1997 and as such, there was inordinate delay in initiating action against the petitioner. Learned counsel finally submits that the findings recorded by the first respondent in the impugned order cannot form the basis for inflicting major penalty of permanent reversion and the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate vis-à-vis the charges levelled against the petitioner. 8. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation vehemently contended that though the petitioner was given opportunity to peruse the records during enquiry, but he did not peruse the records. Learned standing counsel has also referred to the letter written by the petitioner to the first respondent stating that he would remit the pecuniary losses, if any, to be arrived in the disciplinary proceedings. It is also submitted that the report of the Vigilance Officer / Enquiry Officer in Rc.No.13/89/VO dated 17.06.1989 reveals that the petitioner was incharge of the godown at S. Kota from 1978 to 1981. Learned standing counsel had taken this Court through various records and the material available on record in support of his contentions and submits that the impugned order is just and reasonable and there is nothing to interfere with the same. 9. Having considered the above rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the impugned order is sustainable or whether it is liable to be set aside. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Senior Stores Assistant at S. Kota Branch Officer of the Corporation. 9. Having considered the above rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the impugned order is sustainable or whether it is liable to be set aside. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Senior Stores Assistant at S. Kota Branch Officer of the Corporation. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he misappropriated the funds of the Corporation to a tune of Rs.78,982.18 and that he was kept under suspension vide proceedings in RC No.1685/82.A.II.B., dated 09.05.1989. The Vigilance Officer of the Corporation was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct detailed enquiry into the matter. Charges were framed against the petitioner on 10.07.1989, Charge-Memo was served on him on 20.07.1989 and after receipt of notices, the petitioner submitted his written explanation on 13.07.1994 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.03.1997 vide RC No.13/89.SCDR/VO and the impugned order is passed on 08.04.1998. 11. As seen from the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 08.04.1998, one A. Ramakrishna Rao, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, had sent the report dated 22.04.1989, wherein, he had informed that the stock register maintained by the petitioner for the empty gunnies for the year 1980 was available but the stock registers for the for the years 1979 and 1981 were not traceable. However, the report of the enquiry officer reveals that the Senior Manager of the Corporation reported that the basic record of the empty gunnies register was misplaced. 12. The report of the Enquiry Officer also shows that the Senior Manager, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, reported that the stock register for the years 1979 to 1981 are not traceable. It appears that the stock register of the year 1981 was reconstructed. When the case of the petitioner is that whatever acknowledgments he obtained for supply of empty gunnies were pasted in the stock register of 1981 and when the original stock register for the year 1981 is not available, the very basis of the charge falls to ground. 13. It has to be seen that the petitioner handed over the charge to his successor on 14.12.1981. The charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 10.07.1989. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.03.1997. 13. It has to be seen that the petitioner handed over the charge to his successor on 14.12.1981. The charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 10.07.1989. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.03.1997. Basing on the said report, a show cause notice was issued by the first respondent/appellate authority on 08.04.1997 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said show cause notice. Then the petitioner submitted a representation on 26.09.1997 stating that witnesses were not examined in his presence and no opportunity was given to him to cross-examine those witnesses. Basing upon the said representation, an oral enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was informed to produce the witnesses on 14.11.1997. Statements of the witnesses were recorded on 14.11.1997 and 06.12.1997 in the presence of the petitioner by the second respondent. After completion of the oral enquiry, it appears that the second respondent has not prepared any report and there is nothing on record to show that a copy the said report was furnished to the petitioner. 14. Learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation has shown me the list of records handed over by the petitioner to his successor Mr. Seshaiah. In the report submitted by the first Enquiry Officer, it has been categorically mentioned that the Junior Manager and the staff who worked during the year 1980-81 are directly or indirectly responsible for misusing the empty gunnies. 15. Learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that though the petitioner was given an opportunity to peruse the records, but he did not peruse the records. He has also referred to the letter written by the petitioner to the first respondent stating that he would remit the pecuniary losses, if any, to be arrived in the disciplinary proceedings. Merely because the petitioner informed that he would remit the pecuniary losses, if any, arrived in the disciplinary proceedings, it does not mean that he had admitted the charges. It is also submitted that the report of the Vigilance Officer/Enquiry Officer dated 17.06.1989 in RC No.13/89/VO reveals that the petitioner was incharge of the godown at S. Kota during the period from 1978 to 1981. It is also submitted that the report of the Vigilance Officer/Enquiry Officer dated 17.06.1989 in RC No.13/89/VO reveals that the petitioner was incharge of the godown at S. Kota during the period from 1978 to 1981. A perusal of the record reveals that no watch register was maintained in the unit to know the exact position of the empty gunnies issued and received from the Shandy Inspectors. It also reveals that a notice was issued to the Manager, Araku to trace out the empty stock registers of 1980 and 1981; export material register of 1979, MFP and AP stock registers of Araku, Sunkarimetta, Gajapathinagaram and Vizianagaram from 1980 and 1981; Salesman empty liabilities, who are involves in purchase of MFP for the above years; MFP and AP stock registers of S. Kota from 1980 and 1981; Invoice Books of 1980 ‘In’ and ‘Out’; and Sale bill books of 1980 and 1981. The Enquiry Officer himself observed that unless a thorough verification is made with all the material available on record, the enquiry could not be completed. In the above circumstances, the Enquiry Officer stated that the request of the petitioner for reinstatement may be considered. 16. Learned standing counsel for the corporation has referred to the proceedings of the oral enquiry. It is clear from the record that the original record was misplaced and even after ordering enquiry, when the petitioner requested to permit him to peruse the records, some other records were shown to him but the relevant record could not be shown to him. Learned standing counsel for the corporation had also referred to the oral evidence adduced in the enquiry. But, the said oral evidence, which was recorded on 14.11.1997, i.e., after a period of 16 years from the date of alleged misappropriation, cannot be taken as sole basis in the absence of the relevant registers, acknowledgements and invoice. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected as President of Girijan Co-operative Corporation Employees Union and the said Union made a representation against the then Senior Manager about his adamant attitude towards the staff and pointing out certain irregularities. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected as President of Girijan Co-operative Corporation Employees Union and the said Union made a representation against the then Senior Manager about his adamant attitude towards the staff and pointing out certain irregularities. It is also submitted that the employees went on mass casual leave and it is the main reason for initiating proceedings against the petitioner and that the same officer against whom allegations have been made (respondent No.5) initiated proceedings against the petitioner by issuing memo in R.C. No.181/81/E, dated 03.02.1982 alleging that the petitioner is responsible for deficit in gunny bags during the period 1980-81. It appears that there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was elected as President of the Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited Employees Union and on behalf of the union, a representation was made against the fifth respondent, the whole trouble started. 18. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation stating that he had obtained acknowledgments from the Shandy Inspectors and others for issue of gunny hags and entries were made in the stock register and that he placed those acknowledgements in the stock register. It has to be seen that only on 14.10.1985, the second respondent appointed the fifth respondent, against whom the Employees Union headed by the petitioner made allegations, as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations. When the petitioner raised objections, then the third respondent was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Then the third respondent- L. Sanyasi Rao, who was working as Senor Manager, FAC, addressed a D.O. letter in D.O.Rc.No.181/81.B dated 03.03.1982 to the fifth respondent stating that the fifth respondent issued notices to the petitioner to make good the deficit to a tune of Rs.78,982.18 ps, but however, the details of the report were not traced out in the file. Then he requested the fifth respondent to furnish the correct information in detail, if any, available with him. It appears that there was no response from the fifth respondent to this letter. It has to be seen that the third respondent submitted the Enquiry Report dated 15.03.1996 to the first respondent instead of submitting the same to the second respondent, who is the disciplinary authority. It appears that there was no response from the fifth respondent to this letter. It has to be seen that the third respondent submitted the Enquiry Report dated 15.03.1996 to the first respondent instead of submitting the same to the second respondent, who is the disciplinary authority. Even this report also shows that the stock registers for the years 1979 to 1981 were not traceable, but however, it was held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. 19. The entire procedure followed by the respondents appears to be irregular. The allegation of the petitioner is that the copies of the statements of the witnesses were not supplied to him in spite of his request to furnish the same. Admittedly, no report pertaining to the oral enquiry is prepared and furnished to the petitioner. It is also clear there is inordinate delay in conducting the enquiry and in finalisation of the proceedings. It is also clear that the relevant records went missing. 20. Learned standing counsel for the corporation submitted that in the subsequent arbitration proceedings, it was held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. It is settled law that subsequent records or records pertaining to some other proceedings, which are not part of the enquiry, cannot be taken into subsequent records were reconstructed, but it appears that only purchases were reflected in those registers and issues were not reflected as per the report of the first Enquiry Officer. 21. Learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation submits that the petitioner has not availed any opportunity of filing an appeal to the Board of Directors. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Service Rules of the respondent corporation, the second respondent is the disciplinary authority and the first respondent is the appellate authority in respect of Officers of Grade-V and VI and that the petitioner is a Grave-V officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that since the appellate authority himself has passed impugned order, the petitioner has lost an opportunity to approaching the first appellate authority. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that since the appellate authority himself has passed impugned order, the petitioner has lost an opportunity to approaching the first appellate authority. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the judgment in the case between State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh (1) 2009 (2) SCJ 83 = (2008) 8 SCC 236 , wherein the Apex Court observed that on receipt of enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any. In the instant case, as discussed above, there is nothing on record to show that the second respondent prepared any report after recording oral-evidence. it is also clear that there is nothing on record to show that the statements of the witnesses were furnished to the petitioner by the respondents. When the original record is not made available, may be for the reason that it is missing, it is clear that the original base is lost. 23. In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, it is clear that there is violation of principles of natural justice and procedural irregularities in the instant case. The impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be iterated as he is in service continuously till the date of his attaining superannuation and is entitled to all consequential benefits. There shall be no order as to costs.