JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Annexure-6 order dated 13th August, 2008, by which the Chairman of the then Assam State Electricity Board has imposed on him the penalty of compulsory retirement from the Board's service. The penalty has been imposed pursuant to a departmental proceeding, in which the following charges had been levelled against the petitioner:- "Charge No. 1. Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business of the Board or its property. Charge No. 2. Causing loss to the Board or its property. Charge No. 3. Breach of ASEB Officers (Conduct) Regulation 1982." Alongwith the charge-sheet dated 13th September, 2007, the statement of allegations in support of the charges had also been enclosed, which reads as follows:- "Charge No. 1. Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Business of the Board. Report of the S.D.O. (Civil) Rangia dt. 20.8.07 and that of General Manager, Lower Assam T&T Zone, Narangi dt. 20.8.07 reveal that as per the Chief General Manager (LDC) Kahilipara's order No. AEGCL/GM/T. SDLC/1-12/Scrap) NIT-15/06/118 dt. 26.06.07, the Rangia Grid Sub-Station had to allow a bidder to lift some scrap materials as per the approved list. Accordingly, the bidder lifted the materials and arranged to carry them to destination By Vehicle No. WB-23-A/6713 which has been detained by local public on 13.8.09 on suspicion and they also made appeal before the S.D.O. (Civil) Rangia for his intervention. Consequently the vehicle was taken into police custody. The S.D.O. (Civil) entrusted one Executive Magistrate namely A. Barua to enquire into the matter and report. The report of the Executive Magistrate dt. 16.8.07 reveals that, in the presence of Sri P.K. Bagchi, General Manager, AEGCL, the materials from the vehicle were unloaded and checked whether the Materials were as per the challan. The challan bearing No. RSG-7 dt. 11.8.07 was signed by Sri D.C. Medhi, AEE, Pradip Saikia, Jr. Manager and Jatin Mahanta, Store Keeper. After being unloaded Sri P.K. Bagch, General Manger, AEGCL, identified 12 items which were not included in the challan and the approximate value of those 12 items will be around Rs. 1,98,200/-. Sri Amrit Nandan Bora was in charge of the Resident Engineer of the Sub-Station. The Executive Magistrate himself lodged FIR against all the four employees/Officers of the Sub-Station and taken into custody. 1,98,200/-. Sri Amrit Nandan Bora was in charge of the Resident Engineer of the Sub-Station. The Executive Magistrate himself lodged FIR against all the four employees/Officers of the Sub-Station and taken into custody. The list of articles which were not included in the challan is as below:- 1. One Wolf make Table grinder 2. Co-axial cable - 20mts. 3. L.T. Stay plate - 120 Nos. 4. Copper pipe – (different dia) - 4 Nos. 5. Tower member - 0.75 M.T. 6. Conductor-cut pieces (panther, wolf etc. - 1 MT (Approx) 7. Celling fan (seems to be damaged) - 24 Nos. 8. G.I. pipe meant for GOAB switch & Isolators. 9. Channel 40 * 75 * 6 mm (A few pieces) includes in lower member) 10. Road Roller - 1 No 11. Fulling & lifting m/c (seems to be condemned) - 2 no 12. Control Cable (cut pieces) Sri D.C. Medhi holding the charge of S.D.E./Manager of the Rangia Grid Sub-Station, signed the challan for listed materials and allowed the bidder to lift stealthily some valuable unlisted items as stated above prove that this was done not for any interest of the Board but for his personal gain. This is sheer dishonesty on his part which is exposed. Theft, Fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Business of the Board is a misconduct under Regulation, 10(i)(b) of ASEB (General Service) Regulation (for officers), 1960. Sri D.C. Medhi is therefore charged under the said Regulation. Charge No. 2: Causing loss to the Board or its property:- From what has been narrated in the charge No. 1 above it is easily understandable that Sri D.C. Medhi in association with other 3 employees of the Sub-Station played a vital role in causing loss to the Board by allowing the bidder to lift stealthily Board's property of approximate value of Rs. 1,98,200/-. Causing loss to the Board or its property is a misconduct under Regulation 10(i)(c) of the ASEB (General Service Regulation (for officers), 1960. Sri D.C. Medhi is therefore, charged under the said Regulation. Charge No. 3: Breach of ASEB Officers conduct Regulation, 1982. ASEB Officers Conduct Regulation, 1982 lays down that every officers of the Board shall discharge his duties with absolute integrity, devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of an officer of the Board. Sri D.C. Medhi is therefore, charged under the said Regulation. Charge No. 3: Breach of ASEB Officers conduct Regulation, 1982. ASEB Officers Conduct Regulation, 1982 lays down that every officers of the Board shall discharge his duties with absolute integrity, devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of an officer of the Board. Sri D.C. Medhi, Manager by involving himself in the activities as narrated in the charge No. 1 & 2 above, i.e. by willfully causing loss to the Board by way of stealthily lifting unlisted items as listed above for personal gain acted in a manner which is unbecoming of an officer of the Board and thereby breached the ASEB Officers Conduct Regulation, 1982. Breach of ASEB Officers Conduct Regulation, 1982 is a misconduct under Regulation 10(1)(n) of ASEB (General Service) Regulations (for officers), 1960. Sri Deben Ch. Medhi is therefore charged under the said Regulation." 2. If we go by the aforesaid charges, there is virtually only one allegation against the petitioner, which is, that the petitioner although had signed the challan for listed materials but allowed the bidder to load stealthily some valuable unlisted items numbering 12(twelve) proving that such act on the part of the petitioner was not in the interest of the Board but for his personal gain. As the charges would reveal, the allegation against the petitioner is that some unaccounted materials numbering 12(twelve) although not listed in the challan signed by the petitioner alongwith the 2(two) other officials were detected in the truck. It was alleged that the petitioner in his capacity as the Manager of the Sub-Station allowed the said un accounted materials to go out of the Sub-Station. Interestingly, the Inquiry Officer while holding the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 has held him guilty of charge Nos. 2 and 3, although the said 2(two) charges are the offshoot of the said main charge. As noted above, reading together all the charges, there is only one charge, explained above. 3. In response to the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply and the disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the same, conducted an enquiry by appointing the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, on conclusion of the enquiry the report thereof was submitted on 4th March, 2008 holding the petitioner not guilty of charge No. 1 but guilty of charge Nos. 2 and 3. In response to the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply and the disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the same, conducted an enquiry by appointing the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, on conclusion of the enquiry the report thereof was submitted on 4th March, 2008 holding the petitioner not guilty of charge No. 1 but guilty of charge Nos. 2 and 3. Upon issuance of the second show cause notice requiring the petitioner to show response to the same, the petitioner submitted his reply thereto inter alia contending that the charge No. 1 having not been established in the enquiry, the other two charges could not have been held to be established by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 13th August, 2008, the petitioner having been imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement from service, he preferred an appeal dated 2nd September, 2008 but the same having not been disposed of, he invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have justified their action in passing the impugned order. 5. I have heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel alongwith Mr. R.J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned standing counsel, AEGCL. 6. Referring to the charges quoted above, Mr. Das submits that once the charge No. 1 was not established in the enquiry, there could not have been any finding holding him guilty of the charge Nos. 2 and 3. Referring to the enquiry report, he also submits that the findings recorded therein in respect of charge Nos. 2 and 3 are perverse and based on no evidence. In support of his submission, he has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Dwijendra Nath Deka Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2012 (4) GLT 259. 7. Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned standing counsel, AEGCL, on the other hand, submits that since the charge Nos. 2 and 3 are independent of the charge No. 1 irrespective of holding the petitioner not guilty of charge No. 1, the disciplinary authority was within its competence and jurisdiction to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the basis of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge Nos. 2 and 3. 2 and 3 are independent of the charge No. 1 irrespective of holding the petitioner not guilty of charge No. 1, the disciplinary authority was within its competence and jurisdiction to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the basis of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge Nos. 2 and 3. Countering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two other officials of the respondent Board, who were also charged with the same charges relating to the same incident having been imposed with lesser penalty, there is discrimination, Mr. Sarma submits that the petitioner was not discriminated as the charge Nos. 2 and 3 have been established in the enquiry. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in V. Ramana Vs. A.P. SRTC & Ors. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 338 , he submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioner being not disproportionate, there is no question of interference with the same and that it is not for the writ Court to sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. 8. The decision on which Mr. Das has placed reliance, i.e. Dwijendra Nath Deka (supra) is on the issue relating to the basic charge in the charge-sheet vis-a-vis the incidental charges. In the said case, the basic charge against the petitioner was that of theft, which was found not proved. However, referring to the incidental charges/allegations of negligence where the petitioner involved therein was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement, the same was interfered with. This case has been pressed into service so as to argue that the basic charge against the petitioner (charge No. 1) having not been established, the other two charges, which are offshoots of the said basic charge could not have been said to be established in the enquiry. 9. As noted above in V. Ramana (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless shocking to the conscience of the Court should not be subjected to judicial review. Even in cases so falling within the scope of judicial review, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the penalty imposed. Even in cases so falling within the scope of judicial review, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the penalty imposed. This judgment has been pressed into service in reference to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the other two co-employees having been imposed with lesser penalty on the same set of charges, the case of the petitioner is also required to be dealt with at par with the said two employees. In this connection, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copies of the orders dated 13th August, 2008 and 18th August, 2008 passed by the disciplinary authority, i.e. the Chairman of the then ASEB, imposing the penalty of stoppage of 2(two) annual increments with cumulative effect and stoppage of 3(three) annual increments with cumulative effect, respectively, on Shri Pradip Kr. Saikia, Junior Manager and Shri Amrit Nandan Bora, Resident Engineer were also charged with the same allegation like that of the petitioner relating to the same incident. Be it stated here that they were also signatories to the challan in question alongwith the petitioner. 10. As to what are the charges levelled against the petitioner has been noted above. Although the charges are under different heads but the basic allegation, as noted above, is one and the same, i.e. allowing 12(twelve) extra materials to go out, which were not accounted for in the challan to be lifted alongwith the scrap materials, which were accounted for. It was identified that 12(twelve) items, which were not included in the challan approximate value of which was estimated at Rs. 1,98,200/-. It was in the said situation, the petitioner, who had signed the challan, was charged with allowing the bidder to lift stealthily valuable unlisted items alleging that such conduct on his part was not in the interest of the Board but for his personal gain. These facts have been explained in the charge No. 1 and again in charge No. 2 the same allegation was made contending that the petitioner alongwith other 3(three) employees of the Sub-Station played a vital role in causing loss to the Board by allowing to lift stealthily Board's property, referred to above. 11. The charge No. 2 is in fact in reference to the facts narrated in charge No. 1. 11. The charge No. 2 is in fact in reference to the facts narrated in charge No. 1. While levelling the charge No. 2 referring to the narration of fact made in charge No. 1, it was stated: "from what has been narrated in the charge No. 1 above it is easily understandable that Shri D.C. Medhi in association with other 3 employees of the Sub-Station played a vital role in causing loss to the Board by allowing the bidder to lift stealthily Board's property......" So far as the charge No. 3 is concerned, the same is in reference to the ASEB Officers Conduct Regulation, 1982, requiring every Officer of the Board to discharge his duties with absolute integrity, devotion to duty and not to do anything, which is unbecoming of an Officer of the Board. According to the charge No. 3, the petitioner having involved himself in the activities, as narrated in charge Nos. 1 and 2, wilfully caused loss to the Board by allowing lifting of unlisted items stealthily and thereby he violated the provisions of the aforesaid Regulation of 1982. Thus, reading together all the charges levelled against the petitioner, there is absolutely no manner of doubt that there is only one charge against the petitioner, as referred to in charge No. 1. The other two charges are the offshoot of the said basic charge. Even without levelling the charge Nos. 2 and 3 independently the charge No. 1 itself takes care of the charge Nos. 2 and 3. 12. The above position is also evident from the enquiry report, relevant portion of which are quoted below:- "In his oral statement, the charged officer, Shri Medhi says he has heavy workload; he has to visit Nalbari and Mangaldoi also to see the progress of work of construction of two new Sub-Stations. He says in this case, he signed the challan on 11.8.07 and the truck left the Sub-Station on 13.8.07. He also says he does not know how two items not included in the challan, were found in the truck. In reply to a question, he says the scrap matter is not taken seriously as these are not of any use. They have more important work to attend to. He has also no staff to form a committee to deal with such matters. In reply to a question, he says the scrap matter is not taken seriously as these are not of any use. They have more important work to attend to. He has also no staff to form a committee to deal with such matters. In reply to another question as to how the bidder could load the unaccounted materials (not listed in the challan) in the truck, Shri Medhi says he could not give all his attention to the loading of materials in the truck. There are the Store Keeper and also the JE in charge of the stores. Shri Medhi is unable to say how the unaccounted materials could get into the truck. Shri Medhi reiterates that he did not give much importance to this matter as these were scrap materials and were of no use. "The challan listing the materials issued to the bidder, was signed by Shri Medhi as AEE (Stores), the JE, Shri Saikia and the Store Keeper, Shri Mahanta, apart from the recipient of the materials i.e. the bidder who was allowed, as per order of the CGM, to lift the materials. Any person putting his signature to any document, must take full responsibility for whatever is contained in the document. Shri Medhi, too, has not disowned responsibility for what he had signed in the challan. The important point is that he cannot say how the materials not included in the challan (i.e. 12 items) could be loaded on to the truck. He says there were the Store Keeper and the JE, implying thereby that he entrusted the work of issue of the materials to these two officials and he put his signature to the challan without giving adequate attention to the loading of the materials due to his heavy workload and there being more important work for him to attend to. The General Manager, Shri Bagchi, who is one of the top officials of the AEGCL, himself checked, by unloading the materials from the truck and found 12 items which were not included in the challan. There is no ground at all to have any manner of doubt on the point that twelve unaccounted items were loaded on to the truck wholly irregularly. This must have been done quite deliberately and dishonestly for personal gain, by one or more persons." 13. There is no ground at all to have any manner of doubt on the point that twelve unaccounted items were loaded on to the truck wholly irregularly. This must have been done quite deliberately and dishonestly for personal gain, by one or more persons." 13. After the aforesaid findings recorded in the enquiry report, the Inquiry Officer categorically held the petitioner not guilty of the charge No. 1 with the following finding:- "There is however, no evidence of any kind to show conclusively that this was the work done directly or even indirectly at the behest of Shri Medhi. That being the position, it will be found that the allegation under charge No. 1 that Shri Medi dishonestly allowed the bidder to stealthily lift materials not listed in the challan, has not been established." (Emphasis added) 14. However, referring to the allegations under charge Nos. 2 and 3, the Inquiry Officer taking note of the same evidence and same findings in respect of charge No. 1 held the petitioner guilty of charge Nos. 2 and 3. Once it is held that the petitioner is not guilty of charge No. 1, the other 2(two) charges automatically M through and thus, the Inquiry Officer independent of the findings recorded in charge No. 1 could not have held that the charge Nos. 2 and 3 stood established against the petitioner. 15. There is no denial of the fact that although the petitioner was at the Sub-Station, Rangia but he had also to perform duties both at Nalbari and Mangaldoi. In fact this was the specific defence of the petitioner during enquiry that he was depending on other officials of the Sub-Station against whom also departmental proceedings were initiated. As to what are the punishments imposed on the said two employees has been noted above. It is in this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate compared to the penalty imposed on the other 2(two) employees, who were also signatories to the challan in question. 16. As recorded in the enquiry report, the particular challan dated 11th August, 2007 was signed by the petitioner, one Shri Saikia, Junior Manager and one Shri Mahanta (Store Keeper). 16. As recorded in the enquiry report, the particular challan dated 11th August, 2007 was signed by the petitioner, one Shri Saikia, Junior Manager and one Shri Mahanta (Store Keeper). It is also in the finding of the Inquiry Officer that although the challan was signed on 11th August, 2007 but the truck left the Sub-Station on 13th August, 2007; Thus, it is the plea of the petitioner that he had only signed the challan in respect of the materials listed therein, but if in between some more materials were loaded in the truck, which left the Station on 13th August, 2007, he cannot be made responsible for the same. It is the further plea of the petitioner that because of his work load, he had to place heavy reliance on the Store Keeper and the Junior Engineer, In-charge of the Stores. This aspect of the matter also finds mention in the enquiry report. 17. The Inquiry Officer in his report has held that there was lack of proper attention on the part of the petitioner, which was never the charge levelled against him. From the above narration of fact, another aspect of the matter gets revealed is that there was collective responsibility on three or four Officers in respect of disposal of scrap materials. In fact the challan was signed not only by the petitioner but two other employees of the Board, referred to above. In Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Limited & Ors. Vs. Girish Chndra Sarmah reported in 2008 (1) GLT (SC) 5, when it was found that the respondent alone was picked up for departmental proceeding leaving aside others, it was held that the said course of action was adopted as if the respondent alone was responsible for the particular, bill. It was held that such an approach was not correct. In the instant case, the petitioner alongwith other two employees, referred to above, had been taken up for the departmental proceeding relating to the same incident, but while the other two employees have been dealt with lesser penalties, the petitioner had been imposed with the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. All these aspects of the matter will require consideration of the appellate authority before whom the petitioner has preferred the appeal. All these aspects of the matter will require consideration of the appellate authority before whom the petitioner has preferred the appeal. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the appellate authority to pass an appropriate order consistently with the observations made above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 15th January, 2015.