Challenge made in this writ petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 18.3.2005 passed by the Chairman, Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) imposing the penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner and also directing that the period of suspension shall be treated as period absent from duty. Further prayer made is to consider the promotion of the petitioner which was denied because of his suspension and punishment. 2. Case of the petitioner is that at the relevant point of time he was working as Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Lower Assam Civil Circle, ASEB. Petitioner, who was placed under suspension, was served with a show-cause notice dated 27.5.2004 under Regularization 10(1) of the ASEB (General Service) Regulations (for Officers), 1960 (Regulations) to show-cause as to why he should not be penalized for the charges framed against him. The following were the charges framed against him : (1) taking bribe or illegal gratification, (2) dishonesty in connection with the business of ASEB, (3) breach of ASEB Officers (Conduct) Regulations, 1982. The allegations based on which the above charges were framed will be referred to more in detail in the later part of the judgment. At this stage, suffice it to say that the gist of the allegation against the petitioner is that a complaint dated 27.1.2004 was received from one Shri Lila Kanta Duari, LDA, Sivasagar Electrical Sub-Division-1, ASEB alleging that petitioner had demanded payment of Rs. 10,000 from him to correct his date of birth in the service book so that his service could be extended. According to the complainant, he had paid Rs.6,000 as the first instalment. When the petitioner did not make the change in the service book, he complained before his uncle Shri K.N. Buragohain, who was the Member (Personnel) of ASEB. Petitioner was reprimanded by Shri Buragohain whereafter he returned the money to Shri Lila Kanta Duari. Similar complaints against the petitioner were received from one retired employee Shri R.N. Dev and a few other retired employees. The show-cause notice was accompanied by statement of allegation, list of documents and the list of witnesses. 3. Petitioner submitted his written statement dated 17.6.2004 categorically denying the allegation of bribe taking from any of the persons mentioned in the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice was accompanied by statement of allegation, list of documents and the list of witnesses. 3. Petitioner submitted his written statement dated 17.6.2004 categorically denying the allegation of bribe taking from any of the persons mentioned in the show-cause notice. He also stated that as an officer of ASEB, he had always maintained integrity and had done nothing which was unbecoming of an officer of ASEB. He also stated that during his entire service career, he did not receive a single complaint from any quarter regarding lack of integrity. He, therefore, prayed for dropping of the charges. 4. It appears that the reply of the petitioner was not accepted by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, enquiry was ordered to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. One Shri R.N. Bora, IAS (retired) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. During the enquiry, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the management, who were cross-examined by the petitioner. Petitioner did not examine any witness in his defence. However, petitioner's statement was recorded. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 13.10.2004 holding all the three charges against the petitioner to have been proved. 5. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner wide the forwarding letter dated 27.11.2004. It was stated that since the charges against the petitioner were proved, the disciplinary authority proposed to inflict upon the petitioner the penalty of termination from service. Petitioner was, therefore, asked to show-cause as to why such penalty should not be inflicted. 6. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 24.1.2005. It was contended that the entire enquiry report was based on suspicion. There was no evidence to hold that the charges against the petitioner were proved. He, therefore, prayed for dropping of the proceedings and to exonerate him from the charges. 7. Chairman, ASEB as the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 8.3.2005 holding that petitioner was guilty of the charges brought against him. Accordingly, the punishment, as already noticed above, was imposed on the petitioner. Petitioner was reinstated in the same post but it was clarified that he would not be entitled to any pay and allowances for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid. 8. Against the aforesaid order of penalty, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 29.4.2005. Petitioner was reinstated in the same post but it was clarified that he would not be entitled to any pay and allowances for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid. 8. Against the aforesaid order of penalty, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 29.4.2005. Secretary, ASEB issued order dated 6.12.2005 stating that the Board of Directors (Board) in its meeting held on 5.10.2005 examined the appeal but did not find any reasonable ground to disturb the order of penalty dated 8.3.2005. Board, therefore, rejected the appeal of the petitioner. 9. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 10. Contention of the petitioner is that Shri K.N. Buragohain, Member (Personnel) was present and had participated in the Board proceedings while considering the appeal of the petitioner. Shri Buragohain was the uncle of the complainant Shri Lila Kanta Duari and it was at his instance that the complaint was filed against the petitioner by Shri Duari. Shri Buragohain had also deposed in the enquiry as a management witness. Chairman, ASEB, who is the disciplinary authority, also participated in the Board's proceeding while deciding the petitioner's appeal. Therefore, their participation had vitiated the appellate order. Both the appellate order as well as the order of the disciplinary authority are non-speaking orders. The enquiry was -conducted by the Enquiry Officer in such a manner so as to suit the case of the disciplinary authority. The findings in the enquiry report were entirely based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures. There was no credible evidence or proof against the petitioner. In such circumstances, impugned punishment cannot be justified and calls for appropriate interference by the court. 11. Respondents have filed a common affidavit. Stand taken in the said affidavit is that petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.4.2004 and thereafter show-cause notice was issued on 27.5.2004. After holding an enquiry, order dated 8.3.2005 was passed imposing the punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect after confirming the suspension order. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as a period absent from duty. In the enquiry, Enquiry Officer duly examined all the evidence and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend his case. Disciplinary authority also gave personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as a period absent from duty. In the enquiry, Enquiry Officer duly examined all the evidence and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend his case. Disciplinary authority also gave personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Though initially termination from service was proposed, after considering all aspects, the disciplinary authority decided to impose the lesser penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. Appeal of the petitioner was examined by the Board on 5.10.2005 and after due consideration, the same was rejected. It was a combined decision of the Board and question of influencing the Board's decision by any individual member did not arise. The charges against the petitioner were grave which were proved in a regular disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, his case was not considered by the DPC for promotion. No person junior to the petitioner was promoted. 12. Petitioner had filed an affidavit on 21.3.2013. It is stated that petitioner retired from service on superannuation in the month of February, 2013. He has stated that while visiting the ASEB office in connection with his retiral benefits, he could see the resolution of the Board dated 5.10.2005 relating to his departmental appeal. He has placed on record the relevant extract of the said resolution which he had noted down. As per the proceedings of the Board dated 5.10.2005, it was resolved that the appeal of the petitioner be rejected and a reasoned order be passed in the line of the parawise comments submitted by the management on the appeal. The proceedings further indicate that the Chairman, ASEB, who is the disciplinary authority, and the Member (Personnel), ASEB were present in the meeting and-had participated in the proceedings dated 5.10.2005. 13. Respondents had filed an affidavit on 10.4.2013 in response to the above affidavit filed by the petitioner. Though it is admitted that the Chairman, ASEB and Member (Personnel), ASEB attended the meeting of the Board on 5.10.2005 as there were other items in the agenda, at the time of consideration of the appeal of the petitioner, both of them did not take part. 14. In his reply affidavit filed on 10.4.2013, petitioner has questioned the competence of Shri Gobinda Deka, Deputy General Manager (HR), Assam Power Distribution Company Limited to swear the affidavit on behalf of the respondents, which was filed on 10.4.2013. 14. In his reply affidavit filed on 10.4.2013, petitioner has questioned the competence of Shri Gobinda Deka, Deputy General Manager (HR), Assam Power Distribution Company Limited to swear the affidavit on behalf of the respondents, which was filed on 10.4.2013. He has reiterated his contention that both Chairman and Member (Personnel) were present and had participated in the meeting of the Board held on 5.10.2005. 15. This court by order dated 1.3.2006 had admitted the writ petition and had called for the record. Though the record was produced at the time of hearing, it did not contain the appellate proceedings of the Board. Consequently, learned Standing Counsel was directed to produce the record of the proceedings of the Board. Learned Standing Counsel produced an extract copy of the proceedings of the Board meeting No.9/ 2005 held on 5.10.2005. 16. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB for the respondents. 17. Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner in his elaborate submission has argued that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are no findings at all in the eye of law as those are not based on any evidence. Findings have been recorded on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. On the basis of such findings, no penalty could have been imposed on the petitioner. The penalty imposed is also not as per the Regulations inasmuch as while the Regulations provide for the penalty of stoppage of increments for a specified period, in case of the petitioner the penalty imposed was stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect, which means the stoppage is not for a specified period but for an indeterminate and indefinite period. However, learned counsel for the petitioner focussed more on the appellate proceedings which affirmed the penalty order of the disciplinary authority. He has argued that participation of the Chairman and the Member (Personnel) in the proceedings of the Board on 5.12.2005 when the appeal of the petitioner was taken up for consideration, was in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. He has argued that participation of the Chairman and the Member (Personnel) in the proceedings of the Board on 5.12.2005 when the appeal of the petitioner was taken up for consideration, was in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. While one cannot sit in appeal over his own decision, the main management witness who had deposed on behalf of the management in the enquiry cannot also sit in appeal over the decision of the disciplinary authority which was based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, which in turn placed heavy reliance on his deposition. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the impugned order of penalty as affirmed by the appellate authority. 18. Per-contra, Mr. D. Bhattarcharjee, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the charges against the petitioner were quite grave which were proved in a regular disciplinary proceeding where the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. The disciplinary authority, however, took a lenient view of the matter and imposed a lesser punishment on the petitioner. Insofar the appellate proceedings are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that he does not have the complete proceedings of the Board meeting No.9/2005 held on 5.10.2005, particularly that portion where the members present had put their signatures. 19. In his brief reply, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the complete proceedings of the Board meeting No. 9/2005 held on 5.10.2005 has not been produced before the court by the respondents, the court may draw adverse inference from such omission. 20. Submissions made have been considered. I have also perused the record produced. 21. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Regulations. Regulation 10 deals with disciplinary action and punishment. Certain acts and omissions are listed therein which are to be treated as misconduct. Taking or giving bribe or illegal gratification is an act of misconduct. Stoppage of increment for a specified period is one of the penalties prescribed which may be imposed on an officer found guilty of misconduct. Clause (5) of regulation 10 lays down the procedure to be followed in a disciplinary proceeding. As per the procedure prescribed, ASEB may appoint an appropriate authority to hold the enquiry. Such authority may be from within ASEB or from outside. Clause (5) of regulation 10 lays down the procedure to be followed in a disciplinary proceeding. As per the procedure prescribed, ASEB may appoint an appropriate authority to hold the enquiry. Such authority may be from within ASEB or from outside. In the enquiry, the disciplinary authority may employ an officer of ASEB to be called Presenting Officer to present the case of the disciplinary authority together with the evidence. The charged officer may also take the assistance of another officer of ASEB with the prior permission of the disciplinary authority. In the enquiry, oral evidence shall be heard and the charged officer shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish, which may, however, be declined by the Enquiry Officer for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. 22. From a perusal of the record produced, it is quite evident that no Presenting Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority to present its case before the Enquiry Officer. Though this issue was not argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, court is of the view that since this aspect is important and is apparent from the record, the same cannot be avoided. As already noticed above, regulation 10(5)(b) provides for appointment of Presenting Officer. Importance of the Presenting Officer in a disciplinary proceeding cannot be under-estimated. 23. A departmental enquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Principles of natural justice, which includes a fair procedure, is inbuilt in such a proceeding. The Enquiry Officer has to discharge his functions in a quasi-judicial manner. He has to act fairly and impartially. He has to enquire into the charges by examining the evidence adduced and record a finding. On the other hand, the role of the Presenting Officer is to present the case of the disciplinary authority before the Enquiry Officer. He is the representative of the disciplinary authority. He has to assist the Enquiry Officer by presenting before him the case of the disciplinary authority. Hehass to'marshal the facts arid to examine and cross-examine the witnesses produced during the enquiry. It is he who has to produce and prove the listed documents during the enquiry and lead the oral evidence in support of the charge. He has to assist the Enquiry Officer by presenting before him the case of the disciplinary authority. Hehass to'marshal the facts arid to examine and cross-examine the witnesses produced during the enquiry. It is he who has to produce and prove the listed documents during the enquiry and lead the oral evidence in support of the charge. Therefore, in the absence of the Presenting Officer, it is the Enquiry Officer who will have to produce the documents and present the witnesses. In such a case, he will assume the role of the judge as well as that of the prosecutor, which will be a total negation of the avowed principles of natural justice and fair procedure. Absence of the Presenting Officer will certainly not be a fair procedure. 24. Though the disciplinary proceeding stood vitiated because of non-appointment of Presenting Officer, since substantial arguments have been advanced on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as well as on the appellate proceedings, those may also be attended to. 25. The three charges framed against the petitioner have already been noticed and noted in the earlier part of the judgment. Charge Nos. 2 and 3 are corollary to charge No.1, which is the main charge. Charge No.1 is taking bribe or illegal gratification. The statement of allegation leading to framing of the above charge indicates that the said Shri Lila Kanta Duari had submitted a complaint dated 27.1.2004 alleging that petitioner had demanded Rs. 10,000 from him for correcting his date of birth in his service book so that his service could be extended. The complainant paid Rs.6,000 as first instalment and promised to pay the balance amount in another instalment. But the petitioner did not make the necessary correction. On receipt on the complaint, Shri K.N. Buragohain, Member (Personnel) verbally reprimanded the petitioner on 8.4.2004 in his office chamber in the presence of other officers. He was directed to refund the money taken by him from the complainant. Accordingly, petitioner proceeded to the native village of the complainant at Sivsagar and handed over Rs.6,000 to him at his residence on the previous day of Bohag Bihu. Likewise, one Shri R.N. Dev, a retired employee had lodged a complaint that the petitioner had taken an amount of Rs.500 from him for checking his service book. Accordingly, petitioner proceeded to the native village of the complainant at Sivsagar and handed over Rs.6,000 to him at his residence on the previous day of Bohag Bihu. Likewise, one Shri R.N. Dev, a retired employee had lodged a complaint that the petitioner had taken an amount of Rs.500 from him for checking his service book. Another complaint was received from the Unit Secretary of Power Workers Union, BTPS alleging that petitioner had taken illegal gratification from three other retired employees in addition to Shri R.N. Dev for checking their Service Books. Petitioner was, therefore, charged with gross misconduct for taking bribe/illegal gratification. 26. Petitioner in his written statement denied that he had demanded Rs. 10,000 from Shri Lila Kanta Duari and that Shri Duari had paid him Rs.6,000 as first instalment. Regarding correction of date of birth of Shri Duari in his service book, petitioner stated that his date of birth was originally recorded as 1.3.1947. Though it was subsequently changed to 1,3.1946, the same was without the seal and signature of the competent authority and without any documentary evidence. When the matter was put up before the higher authority, the date of birth was confirmed as 1.3.1947. Therefore, further correction of date of birth and extension of service of Shri Lila Kanta Duari did not arise. He further submitted that on 8.4.2004, the Member (Personnel) called him to his office chamber and in the presence of other senior officers severely re-primanded him without giving him any opportunity to say anything. He also denied taking any money from Shri R.N. Dev or from the other three retired employees as alleged. He explained that there was no intentional delay in checking the service books which was due to lack of adequate man power and because of time taken to receive audit report. 27. After examining the evidence adduced by the management witnesses, including that of Shri K.N. Buragohain, the Enquiry Officer discussed charge No.1 in the following manner : "It is found that the Service Book of Shri Lila Kanta Duari was sent to the office of the Dy. Chief Auditor, ASEB, Guwahati, for some verification/correction. The date of birth of Shri Duari, according to his Matriculation Certificate, was in 1947 and it was recorded accordingly in the Service Book. But, as stated, it was overwritten to make it 1946, in place of 1947. Chief Auditor, ASEB, Guwahati, for some verification/correction. The date of birth of Shri Duari, according to his Matriculation Certificate, was in 1947 and it was recorded accordingly in the Service Book. But, as stated, it was overwritten to make it 1946, in place of 1947. That would mean Shri Duari would have to retire from service one year earlier than the date on which he should retire according to his actual/official date of birth as per the Matriculation Certificate. Shri Duari was naturally concerned when he came to know about it. As stated by Shri Duari, Shri Dhiren Das who works as a peon in the same office where Shri Duari works as LDA, and who is a brother of Shri Golap Das, Asstt. Manager (Accounts), Audit, ASEB, Guwahati, told Shri Duari that Shri Golap Das telephoned him to inform Shri Duari that the date of birth in the Service Book, would be corrected; but for this Shri Duari would have to pay Rs.10,000 for Shri Golap Das. After this, Shri Duari met Shri Golap Das at his house near Sibsagar when Shri Das asked for Rs.10,000 for correcting the date. Later sometime in November 2003, Shri Duari paid Rs.6,000 to Shri Golap Das at his (Shri Das's) house and promised to pay the balance Rs.4,000 after wards. Even after paying Rs.6,000 Shri Duari did not get back his Service Book and so, he contracted the Member (Personnel) of the ASEB (who is his relative). Member (Personnel) informed Shri Duari that he had asked Shri Golap Das to return the money. On the day before the last Bohag Bihu, Shri Golap Das came to his house and returned him the money (Rs.6,000). Shri Duari gave one receipt also to Shri Das acknowledging the money. Shri Golap Das, of course, denied he took any money from Shri Duari. To refute the contention that Shri Das received the money from Shri Duari in November 2003, Shri Das submitted some papers to show that he availed leave during November 2003, to visit Puri. From these papers (i.e., copies of Railway tickets, Hotel bill of a Puri hotel and a certificate about grant of leave, i.e., 5 days of CL from 17.11.2003 to 21.11.2003 with Station leave permission from 14.11.2003), it would be found that Shri Das was away from Guwahati from 14,11.2003 up to 21.11.2003, to , visit Puri. From these papers (i.e., copies of Railway tickets, Hotel bill of a Puri hotel and a certificate about grant of leave, i.e., 5 days of CL from 17.11.2003 to 21.11.2003 with Station leave permission from 14.11.2003), it would be found that Shri Das was away from Guwahati from 14,11.2003 up to 21.11.2003, to , visit Puri. The point to note is that Shri Duari does not remember the exact date on which he paid the money to Shri Das; all that he remembers is that it was in November 2003. Apart from the eight days in November 2003, when Shri Das was away from Guwahati to visit Puri as stated, there were 22 other days in the month when Shri Das was supposed to be in Guwahati. There were Sundays and other holidays during this period. Thus, the possibility of Shri Das visiting his home in Sibsagar on such Sundays and holidays cannot really be ruled out. What struck me most during the deposition by Shri Duari in this case, is his plain and simple manner. The way he wrote these personal letters to the Member (Personnel and Admn.), Shri Buragohain, because he happened to be his relative, the language he used in writing the letter (in Assamese with plenty of wrong spellings also), the manner in which he deposed and replied to questions put to him, would unmistakably suggest that Shri Duari is a very simple and unsophisticated person, plain and straight in his conduct. It is certainly difficult to believe that such a person can invent this kind of a fake story to falsely implicate an officer of the Board, with the charge of bribery. The charge official, Shri Das thinks some people in the ASEB are jealous of him because he got quick promotions and as he also belongs to a S.C. According to Shri Das, these people might have engaged Shri Duari (and also the other person Shri Dev) to bring such false charges against him. This, however, is hardly convincing, It is difficult to believe that a man like Shri Duari, working as a LDA, without any reason and without any question of any gain for himself, would bring a false charge of bribery against Shri Das, at the behest or instigation of'some people'. This, however, is hardly convincing, It is difficult to believe that a man like Shri Duari, working as a LDA, without any reason and without any question of any gain for himself, would bring a false charge of bribery against Shri Das, at the behest or instigation of'some people'. Moreover, the statement of Shri Das that some people in the ASEB are jealous of him and that they might have engaged Shri Duari (and Shri Dev) to bring such false charges against him, is just a mere surmise, without any basis and is totally unacceptable. Another sticking aspect of the enquiry is the evidence of Shri K.N. Buragohain. Shri Buragohain is the Member (Personnel and Admn.) of the ASEB; and next only to the Chairman, he is the topmost officer of the Board in matters relating to Personnel and Administration. Shri Duari is a relative of Shri Buragohain and as stated by Shri Buragohain, he knows Shri Duari closely. There must have been enough ground for Shri Buragohain to believe Shri Duari when he told him that he paid money to Shri Das for getting the work done. Shri Buragohain immediately called some concerned officers of the Board as well as Shri Das to his chamber and asked Shri Das to return the money to Shri Duari. Subsequent to this, Shri Buragohain got another letter from Shri Duari informing him that Shri Das returned the money to him. Shri Buragohain confirmed it also from Shri Duari personally when he met him afterwards. Obviously, Shri Buragohain has nothing against Shri Das; he even did not know him earlier to this complaint (to Shri Duari). There is no plausible reason why Shri Buragohain will acquiesce to initiating of departmental action against Shri Das, without very strong and valid grounds. In the written statement submitted by Shri Das during the enquiry on 8.10.2004, he has drawn attention to the 'contradictory' position of the date of the letter written by Shri Duari to Shri Buragohain and the day when he advised him to give the complaint in writing. It would be found that Shri Buragohain got the telephonic call from Shri Duari in April 2004 and advised him to give (complaint) in writing. After this, Shri Buragohain received the letter from Shri Duari, but this letter shows it was written in January 2004 (i.e., on 27.10.2004). It would be found that Shri Buragohain got the telephonic call from Shri Duari in April 2004 and advised him to give (complaint) in writing. After this, Shri Buragohain received the letter from Shri Duari, but this letter shows it was written in January 2004 (i.e., on 27.10.2004). The point raised by Shri Das and with some apparent validity also, is that if Shri Buragohain asked Shri Duari in April 2,004, to send the^written complaint, how could Shri Duari write the letter in January, 2004? The actual position seems to be that Shri Duari must have written the letter in January 2004 (27.1.2004), but for some reason, it reached Shri Buragohain only in April 2004 (6th or 7th April). Had Shri Duari written the letter in April 2004 after getting the advice from Shri Buragohain, he would certainly not put the date as 27.1.2004 -- there could be no earthly reason for him to do so. Shri Duari probably did not or could not state about the letter he had already written, to Shri Buragohain, when he (Shri Duari) talked to him on the telephone in April 2004. As stated, there could be no reason for Shri Duari to write the letter in April 2004, by giving the date of the letter as 27.1.2004. It will be found, therefore, that there is no contradictory position of the date of the letter written by Shri Duari and the day on which Shri Buragohain advised him to give the complaint in writing. From what has been discussed above, I find that the allegation against Shri Das that he received Rs.6,000 from Shri Duari for correcting the date of birth in his Service Book, and that Shri Das later returned the money to Shri Duari, after he was asked to do so by the Member (Personnel), Shri Buragohain, has been made out. As regards the other allegation coming under this charge, the Retired UDA, Shri R.N. Dev very clearly states that he paid Rs.500 to Shri Golap Das for expediting the work of his Service Book. Earlier, he submitted a written complaint also (dated 20.3.2004) to the Member (Personnel) stating that he paid Rs.500 to Shri Golap Das to expedite the work of his Service Book. Earlier, he submitted a written complaint also (dated 20.3.2004) to the Member (Personnel) stating that he paid Rs.500 to Shri Golap Das to expedite the work of his Service Book. Nothing has come out in the enquiry to disbelieve Shri Dev and accordingly, it is found that this allegation that Shri Das took Rs.500 from Shri Dev for expediting the work of his (Shri Dev's) Service Book, has also been made out." 28. A careful perusal of the aforesaid portion of the enquiry report will reveal that the Enquiry Officer had based his conclusion purely on surmises and conjectures. There is no material on record to show that petitioner had demanded money which was partly paid by the complainant. According to the version of the complainant, he had telephonically informed his uncle Shri Buragohain in April 2004 regarding the illegal demand made by the petitioner. On advise of his uncle, he submitted the written complaint. But the date of the written complaint is 27.1.2004. This apparent contradiction has not been explained. Enquiry Officer says that the letter though written in January, may have reached Shri Buragohain only in April! This is absurd to say the least. Enquiry Officer also believed in the simplicity of the complainant and observed that such a simple and unsophisticated person could not have falsely implicated an officer with the charge of bribe taking. Enquiry Officer did not say anything on changing of the date of birth of the complainant in his service book from 1.3.1947 to 1.3.1946 by way of over-writing or who would have benefitted from such change. On the explanation of the petitioner that he was on leave during November 2003 to visit Puri as it was alleged that the bribe money was paid in November 2003, the Enquiry Officer observed that though the complainant did not remember the exact date when the money was paid to the petitioner, petitioner had taken leave for only eight days and the money could have been paid during any of the remaining days. 29. It is true that the standard of proof in a disciplinary proceeding is not so strict as in a criminal trial or even in a civil proceeding. Even then, the charge in a disciplinary proceeding has to be proved and no finding can be arrived at only on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. 29. It is true that the standard of proof in a disciplinary proceeding is not so strict as in a criminal trial or even in a civil proceeding. Even then, the charge in a disciplinary proceeding has to be proved and no finding can be arrived at only on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. On the available materials, I am of the considered opinion that the Enquiry Officer could not have come to the conclusion that charge No.1 against the petitioner stood proved. 30. There is another aspect of the matter. Under regulation 10, both taking or giving bribe is a misconduct. If the petitioner was charged with taking bribe from Shri Lila Kanta Duari, the latter was equally responsible for giving bribe. But he was not charged with giving bribe, thus, committing misconduct. No disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him. If the complainant's version is to be believed, both petitioner and complainant were equally guilty of misconduct. Disciplinary action cannot be taken selectively. 31. Coming to the appellate proceedings, regulation 10(8) provides that in all disciplinary cases where punishments are imposed by the Board, the appellate authority will be the Board itself. In this case, it has already be noticed above that the punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority, i.e., Chairman, ASEB. In the enquiry, Shri K.N. Buragohain, Member (Personnel), had deposed as a management witness, which was heavily relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. But in the proceedings of the Board meeting No.9/2005 held on 5.10.2005 which considered the appeal of the petitioner, both the chairman and the Member (Personnel) were shown as present. Respondents have not placed anything on record to show that the said authorities had recused themselves when the appeal was taken up for consideration. On the contrary, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated in paragraph 10 thereof that the decision of the Board dated 5.10.2005 was a combined decision. It is, thus, clear that the above two authorities had participated in the appellate proceedings, which was in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. 32. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated 8.3.2005 and 6.12.2005 cannot be sustained. Those are accordingly set aside and quashed. Petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. 33. Writ petition is allowed. 34. However, there shall be no order as to cost.