JUDGMENT (ORAL) Heard Mr. S. Kataki, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Apex Bank) and its Managing Director is represented by advocate Mr. PN Goswami. 2. The petitioner is a former employee of the Apex Bank and he challenges the order dated 29.11.1999 (Annexure-VI), whereby he was dismissed from service in pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding. Previously a departmental proceeding was drawn up against the delinquent through the charge memo dated 23.12.1997 (Annexure-I) alleging misconduct and gross irregularities during the delinquent’s tenure as the Accountant of the Tinsukia Branch of the Apex Bank from 29.12.1993 to 27.07.1996. 3. The charges in essence alleged that the delinquent committed irregularities in disbursal of Medium Term Loans for vehicle purchase. The statement of allegations being relevant, are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference :- STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.1 : That as per clause 13 of H.O. letter dt. 28-10-91 “all loan proposals should be forwarded to H.O. by the Branch in charge only and not by any staff Subordinate to him. In case of temporary absence in the Branch proposals should be held up till his return or H.O. opinion should be sought for.” In violation of the above instruction Sri Chutia forwarded the proposals from Sl. No.1 to 13 under Annexure ’A’ directly to H.O. without seeking H.O. opinion as required since Tinsukia Branch is headed by a Branch Manager. That as per instruction communicated by H.O. Memo No.13(A) of 1989 dtd. 30-03-89 the Branch is required to route all proposals up to Rs.3.00 Lakhs(Rupees Three Lakhs) only through respective Zonal Manages. In violation of the above instructions Shri Chutia forwarded the proposals under Sl. No.1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Annexure ‘A’ directly to H.O. without routing through the Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone, Jorhat. That as per clause no.10 of the aforesaid H.O. letter dt. 28-10-91 land properties offered as security should be personally verified by the Branch Manager. In violation of the above instruction Shri Hem Chandra Chutia forwarded the proposals under Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12 of Annexure ‘A’ verified by the Sub-Acctt. of the Branch, Shri D.K. Bordoloi. That the collateral security of proposals under Sl. No.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 were verified by Shri Chutia himself. In violation of the above instruction Shri Hem Chandra Chutia forwarded the proposals under Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12 of Annexure ‘A’ verified by the Sub-Acctt. of the Branch, Shri D.K. Bordoloi. That the collateral security of proposals under Sl. No.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 were verified by Shri Chutia himself. That regarding the proposals forwarded to H.O. by Shri Hem Chandra Chutia, Shri Chutia has stated in written statement dt. 22-06-96, 10-08-96 and 26-08-96 that he was verbally instructed by Branch Manager to forward the proposals and that he had also been verbally directed by the then General Manager, Shri B.N. Sharma to forward the proposals to H.O. Further he was under pressure from H.O. and the applicants. That Shri Chutia had not substantiated his statement of forwarding under instruction from H.O. by following up with H.O. or arranged to get written confirmation from H.O. That in absence of written confirmation from H.O. his defence of acting on pressures from H.O. can not be substantiated and he acted contrary to norms and instructions. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.2 : That all the proposals under Annexure ‘A’ were residents of Duliajan under Dibrugarh District. That though the Bank has a Branch at Duliajan and though the vehicles were purportedly to be placed with OIL, Duliajan Shri Hem Chandra Chutia did not cause to ascertain as to why so many proposals were routed through Tinsukia Branch which fell under a different District. Opinion of Duliajan Branch on credit worthiness of the borrowers were also not insisted upon. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.3 : That Shri Hem Chandra Chutia forwarded 13(Thirteen) proposals of vehicle Loans under Tie-Up arrangement with Oil India Ltd., Duliajan by a single forwarding letter dt. 30-11-94 as under : Sl. Name Amt. recommended No. ___________________________________________ 1. Shri Sanjib Gogoi Rs. 26,86,000.00 2. “ Dipanta Borsaikia Rs. 26,86,000.00 3. “ Rahul Baruah Rs. 2,00,000.00 4. “ Mohan Mech Rs. 2,00,000.00 5. “ Dipu Kalita Rs. 26,86,000.00 6. “ Huntu Baruah Rs. 2,00,000.00 7. “ Pradip Khanikar Rs. 2,00,000.00 8. “ Mohidhar Sonowal Rs. 2,00,000.00 9. “ Putu Gogoi Rs. 2,00,000.00 10. “ Rana Gogoi Rs. 2,00,000.00 11. “ Baba Bora Rs. 2,00,000.00 12. “ Tulsi Borah Rs. 13,00,000.00 13. “ Pradip Gogoi Rs. 2,00,000.00 _______________ Rs. 2,00,000.00 5. “ Dipu Kalita Rs. 26,86,000.00 6. “ Huntu Baruah Rs. 2,00,000.00 7. “ Pradip Khanikar Rs. 2,00,000.00 8. “ Mohidhar Sonowal Rs. 2,00,000.00 9. “ Putu Gogoi Rs. 2,00,000.00 10. “ Rana Gogoi Rs. 2,00,000.00 11. “ Baba Bora Rs. 2,00,000.00 12. “ Tulsi Borah Rs. 13,00,000.00 13. “ Pradip Gogoi Rs. 2,00,000.00 _______________ Rs. 1,11,58,000.00 That Shri Chutia did not cause to ascertain as to how so many seemingly unrelated loaness could approach the Bank at the same time. Rather he processed the proposals for consideration and forwarded to H.O. under a single forwarding letter flouting normal banking principles that too when he was holding temporary charge of the Branch. That similarly he forwarded 3(Three) proposals of Shri Romesh Baruah, Dinesh Bhuyan and Jagat Kalita by a single forwarding letter dt. 05-12-94 recommended Rs.2.00 Lakhs, Rs.2.00 Lakhs and Rs.30.00 Lakhs respectively. That Shri Chutia has stated in a written statement dtd. 22-06-96, 10-08-96 and 26-08-96 before enquiry officers of the Bank that he forwarded the proposals under instructions from H.O. and under duress. That Shri Chutia has not been able to substantiate his claim of instructions from H.O. by getting any written confirmation or written instruction in this regard. STAEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.4 That H.O. of the Bank had from time to time issued necessary instructions to the Branches in respect of entertaining and processing loan applications. That an inquiry report was directed to be submitted with all loan applications in proforma circulated by Memo No.16 of 1987 dt. 14-8-87. That further guidelines were issued under Memo No.13(A) of 1989 dated 30-03-89 and letter No.8308 dt. 28-10-91. That as per clause (6) of H.O. letter dt. 28-10-91 “where borrowers are novices without expertise proposals are to be disposed off immediately without giving them any hope of the loan being granted at a letter date.” That as per clause No.5 of Memo No.13(a) of 1989 dtd. 30-03-89 full biodata with financial back ground of applicants with period of banking with A/Cs position details had to be submitted. That Shri Hem Chandra Chutia processed the loan applications under Sl. No.1 – 13 of Annexure ‘A’ submitting enquiry reports very perfunctorily with vague and contradictory particulars knowing fully well that the H.O. was to act on the strength of the particulars submitted by him. That Shri Hem Chandra Chutia processed the loan applications under Sl. No.1 – 13 of Annexure ‘A’ submitting enquiry reports very perfunctorily with vague and contradictory particulars knowing fully well that the H.O. was to act on the strength of the particulars submitted by him. As for example Shri Mohan Mech was shown as unemployed youth but with business capacity and sound means but with A/C newly opened, Shri Pradip Gogoi (Sl. No.13 Annexure ‘A’) was shown as employed youth but with sound means and business capacity but with A/C newly opened Shri Pradip Gogoi (Sl. No.10 of Annexure ‘A’) as unemployed but able and business minded with a S.B. A/C particulars of which were not mentioned, Shri Dipanta Borsaikia as unemployed youth but with business capacity and sound means with S.B. A/C particulars of which were not mentioned, Shri Dinesh Bhuyan as unemployed but with business capacity and sound means but with No. A/C with the Bank, Shri Deepak Newati as unemployed but able and business minded yougman the S.B. A/C particulars of which were not mentioned, Dipu Kalita who sought a loan of Rs.37,82,100/- was shown having an income of Rs.40,000/- in application form but in enquiry report he was shown as unemployed but with business capacity and sound means but with A/C newly opened, Shri Sanjib Gogoi was shown as having an annual income of Rs.30,000/- in application form but has shown to be unemployed in enquiry report but with business capacity and sound means though A/C was shown as newly opened, Shri Mohidhar Sonowal was shown as having annual income of Rs.20,000/- in application form but enquiry report reflected that he was an unemployed youth but with business capacity and sound means but with A/C newly opened, Shri Huntu Baruah was shown Rs.20,000/- as annual income but in enquiry report he was as unemployed youth with business capacity and sound means but with A/C newly opened, Shri Prdip Khanikar was shown Rs.20,000/- as his annual income but enquiry report reflected that he was an unemployed youth with sound tanding and business capacity but with A/C newly opened, Shri Mintu Thapa was shown Rs.2.00 Lakhs as his annual income in application form but in enquiry report he was shown as unemployed youth but with capable business capacity and sound means but with A/C newly opened, Shri Bhadra Kt. Gogoi who applied for a loan of Rs.28,22,352/- showed an amount of Rs.30,000/- as annual income in application form but in enquiry report it was reflected that he was unemployed youth but with business capacity and sound means, but A/C has been shown as newly opened. The ambiguous submissions show that the informtions furnished by Sri Chutia were false and made to misled the H.O. That Shri Hem Chandra Chutia has stated in his confessional statement dt. 22-06-96, 10-08-96 and 20-8-96 that he prepared the reports on duress and under instructions of H.O. and that he could not substantiate the same, clearly shows that he deliberately misled the H.O. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.5 : That Shri Hem Chandra Chutia had processed and forwarded the proposals under Sl. No.1 – 13 of Annexure ‘A’ and had prepared the enquiry reports of the proposals. That Shri Pradip Khanikar (Sl. No.6 of Annexure ’A’) had given a complaint that though he had applied for the loan he had not availed the loan. An enquiry Team from H.O. intimated that the Loan was a clear case of impersonation and in all probability Shri Anuj Gogoi had availed the loan. Further, Shri Bakeylal Balmiki, the owner of the land which was offered as collateral security against the M.T. Loan of Rs.1,87,000/- sanctioned to one Shri Pradip Gogoi (Sl. No.10 of Annexure ‘A’) has stated that he had not executed any documents against the loan of Shri Pradip Gogoi. The enquiry Team from H.O. also found that Shri Pradip Gogoi was non existent and Shri Anuj Gogoi availed the loan in the name of Shri Pradip Gogoi. Similarly, the Branch was unable subsequently to locate the person by the name of Sanjib Gogoi (Sl. No. 3 of Annexure ‘A’) who was sanctioned an M.T.Loan of Rs.12,85,500/-. That the enquiry officers of the Bank were under the impression that Sanjib Gogoi was non existent and one Shri Kuntha Bikash Gogoi posing as Sanjib Gogoi availed the loan. Had the enquiries been conducted indepth the issue of such fictitious loans would have avoided, Shri Hem Chandra Chutia by his act caused huge pecuniary loss to the Bank. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.6 : That Shri Hem Chandra Chutia verified the collateral security offered with loan proposals of Shri Pradip Khanikar (Sl. No.6 of Annexure ‘A’) Shri Huntu Baruah (Sl. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.6 : That Shri Hem Chandra Chutia verified the collateral security offered with loan proposals of Shri Pradip Khanikar (Sl. No.6 of Annexure ‘A’) Shri Huntu Baruah (Sl. No.7 of Annexure ‘A’) and Shri Mohidhar Sonowal (Sl. No. 8 of Annexure ‘A’). During enquiry by officers of the Bank it was revealed that Shri Jogen Chandra Gogoi, owner of the plot of land, did not mortgage the land though he had stated that the Patta was kept by his son Shri Huntu Baruah. Shri Jogen Chandra Gogoi also stated that he did not know Shri Pradip Khanikar. Apparently therefore the collateral security offered by Shri Huntu Baruah, Pradip Khanikar and Mohidhar Sonowal were never actually offered by the owner of land. The irregularity in the collateral security would not have occurred had the verification of collateral security been done. That Shri Hem Chandra Chutia has stated in written statement before the enquiry officers of the Bank that he did not make the spot enquiries due to pressure from applicants and pressure from H.O. of the Bank. Regarding the 13 proposals forwarded by him under cover of a single forwarding letter dt. 30-11-94 he further admitted that spot verification were not made though he prepared the enquiry reports. That though he has stated that he informed the then General Manager at H.O. over phone regarding non verification and non-enquiry this has not been substantiated by written confirmation. That Shri Hem Chandra Chutia misled the Bank by submitting false verification reports leading to loans against forged security papers causing huge pecuniary loss of the Bank. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.7 : That M.T. Loan proposals of Shri Dipu Kalita, Shri Dipanta Borsaikia & Shri Bhadra Kt. Gogoi were recommended for sanction for purchase of vehicles by Shri Hem Chandra Chutia (Annexure ‘B’) which subsequently sanctioned by the H.O. That Tinsukia Branch of the Bank issued D.D.’s of the balance amounts of the vehicles in favour of French Motor Car Co. Ltd. after Margin Money was shown to have been deposited directly by the borrowers. That it has been confirmed that the loanees under Sl. No. 1- 4 of Annexure ’B’ did not purchase the entire vehicles is under letter of sanction but arranged to get refund of part amounts from the dealer French Motor Car Co. Ltd. (as per Annexure ‘B’). That it has been confirmed that the loanees under Sl. No. 1- 4 of Annexure ’B’ did not purchase the entire vehicles is under letter of sanction but arranged to get refund of part amounts from the dealer French Motor Car Co. Ltd. (as per Annexure ‘B’). That after release of the value of Chasis Shri Hem Chandra Chutia released 50% of remaining loan amount for Body construction, notwithstanding that Sarvashri Bipu Kalita, Dipanta Borsaikia and Bhadra Kt. Gopgoi (Sl. No.1 – 3 of Annexure ‘B’) obtained refund of part amount and bought unspecified vehicles in contravention of terms of sanction. (Shri Dipu Kalita was released Rs.1,46,000/-, Shri Dipanta Borsaikia was released Rs.1,46,000/-, and Shri Bhadra Kt. Gogoi was released Rs.1,46,000/- all on 20-04-95). Moreover, though Quotation were originally submitted by a Body Building Firm of Dibrugarh, payment was released by Shri Chutia favouring a Body Building Firm of Nagaon, Had genuine loan applications, after proper scrutiny been forwarded to H.O., such irregularity by the loanees would not have been possible. Moreover Shri Hem Chandra Chutia directly abetted the irregularity by releasing cost of Body construction when the 1st instalment for Chassis purchase was not utilized properly. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.8 : That the proposals of Sarvashri – a) Sanjib Gogoi M.T. Loan for Rs.35,81,850/- b) Dipu Kalita M.T. Loan for Rs.37,82,100/- c) Dipanta Borsaikia M.T. Loan for Rs.37,82,100/- d) Bhadra Kt. Gogoi M.T. Loan for Rs.28,22,352/- e) Rajan Hazarika M.T. Loan for Rs.17,34,417/- were returned by H.O. to Tinsukia Branch vide letter No.HO/ADV/TSK/95/221 dt. 07-02-95 and Tinsukia Branch in turn returned the proposals to the parties concerned vide letter dt. 15-02-95. However, fresh valuation certificates prepared by Sri Dilip Kr. Bordoloi then Sub-Accountant, Tinsukia Branch were forwarded to H.O. by Shri Hem Chandra Chutia. The forwarding letters had no date. The spot verification reports against proposals of Sarvashri Sanjib Kr. Gogoi, Dipu Kalita, Rajan Hazarika & Bhadra Kt. Gogoi were prepared on 12-02-95, 19-2-95, 18-2-95 & 19-2-95 respectively. Shri Hem Chandra Chutia had stated that all other documents had been forwarded to H.O. earlier. Since, the Branch had returned the proposals on 15-02-95, it is inexplicable on what strength the enquiry report of 12-02-95 and other reports were also forwarded. Gogoi, Dipu Kalita, Rajan Hazarika & Bhadra Kt. Gogoi were prepared on 12-02-95, 19-2-95, 18-2-95 & 19-2-95 respectively. Shri Hem Chandra Chutia had stated that all other documents had been forwarded to H.O. earlier. Since, the Branch had returned the proposals on 15-02-95, it is inexplicable on what strength the enquiry report of 12-02-95 and other reports were also forwarded. In his statement before the enquiry officers of the Bank Shri Hem Chandra Chutia has stated that he had not forwarded the documents of the concerned loanees though stated in his forwarding letters. He stated that though he had forwarded the proposals of Dinesh Bhuyan, Mintu Thapa and Jagat Kalita he had inadvertently mentioned about forwarding the papers/documents as regards proposals a,b,c,d aforesaid. However, if indeed he had not forwarded the proposals there is no material on record to prove that he intimated Branch Manager/H.O. about the irregularity, once the H.O. sanctioned the proposals and sanctioning letters were received by the Branch. He thus in violation of H.O. instruction reprocessed/returned proposals and forwarded to H.O. for consideration. As it turned out all the loanees a,b,c,d aforesaid obtained refund of part amount from supplier and also did not purchase approved vehicle. Due to negligence of Shri Chutia, gross irregularities were committed by the borrowers causing huge pecuniary loss to the Bank. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION OF CHARGE NO.9 : That Shri Hem Chandra Chutia had forwarded and recommended the proposals under Sl. No.1 – 13 of Annexure ‘A’ and the loans were duly sanctioned. That large scale irregularities were detected in the utilisaiton of loans. That Shri Pradip Gogoi (Sl. No.10 of Annexure ‘A’) was sanctioned a loan of Rs.1.87 Lakhs for purchase of Maturi Gypsy. No vehicle was purchased and Shri Pradip Gogoi was apparently non existent. Shri Mohen Mech (Sl. No. 9 of Annexure ‘A’) was sanctioned Rs.2.00 Lakhs for purchase of Matuti Gypsy to be placed with OIL but purchased a Maruti Van and placed with another organization. That Shri Mintu Thapa was sanctioned Rs.2.00 Lakhs for Maruti Gypsy to be placed with OIL but delivery of vehicle was apparently taken by MARA District Council, Aijwal and no vehicle was placed with OIL in Loanees name, Shri Huntu Baruah (Sl. No. 7 of Annexure ‘A’) was sanctioned of Rs.2.00 Lakhs for purchase of Maruti Gypsy to be placed with OIL. No. 7 of Annexure ‘A’) was sanctioned of Rs.2.00 Lakhs for purchase of Maruti Gypsy to be placed with OIL. No vehicle was placed with OIL and apparently Maruti Car was purchased. Shri Pradip Khanikar (Sl. No. 6 of Annexure ‘A’) was sanctioned Rs.2.00 Lakhs for purchase of Maruti Gypsy but Shri Pradip Khanikar appeared to have not availed the loan at all. Shri Sanjib Gogoi who was sanctioned a loan of Rs.12,85,500/- appeared to be non existent and Shri Kunta Bikash Gogoi appeared to have availed the loan in his name, Shri Pradip Gogoi (Sl. No. 13 of Annexure ‘A’) was sanctioned a loan of Rs.2.00 Lakhs for Maruti Gypsy. No vehicle was placed with OIL and purchase of vehicle by loanee could not be ascertained. That Shri Dipu Kalita, Dipanta Borsaikia, Bhadra Gogoi and Sanjib Gogoi (Sl. No. 1 – 4 of Annexure ‘B’) were sanctioned loan (as per Annexure ‘B’) but all of them obtained refund of part amount from supplier and purchased unspecified vehicles. That such large scale irregularities could occur due to negligence of Shri Chutia to make proper verification of the antecedents of the borrowers and to select genuine beneficiaries with care. That by his acts Shri Hem Chandra Chutia has committed grave irregularity leading to huge financial involvement and fictitious loans/fictitious collateral security/absence of Principal security was created in the books of the bank.” 4. In his reply of 20.01.1998 (Annexure-II) the delinquent stated that he forwarded the loan proposals on instruction of the Branch Manager before he went on leave and he further stated that if there were any irregularities in the proposals sent by him, the Head Office should have returned those proposals. In fact the charged employee specifically stated that the matter was informed to the Bank’s General Manager with a request to return the proposals but despite prior intimation the Head Office sanctioned the loans. Therefore the delinquent pleaded in his reply that he was falsely implicated. 5. Considering the reply to be unsatisfactory, an inquiry was ordered by the disciplinary authority and Mr. SC Roy, the Deputy General Manager of the Bank acted as the Inquiry Officer. Therefore the delinquent pleaded in his reply that he was falsely implicated. 5. Considering the reply to be unsatisfactory, an inquiry was ordered by the disciplinary authority and Mr. SC Roy, the Deputy General Manager of the Bank acted as the Inquiry Officer. After conclusion of the proceeding, the Enquiry Officer gave his report on 23.12.1997 (Annexure-VA), whereby he found the charges of gross irregularities, inefficiency, negligence of duty and misconduct to be proved and on the basis of the adverse conclusion, the impugned penalty of dismissal from service was ordered by the disciplinary authority. 6. Assailing the legality of the inquiry proceeding, Mr. S. Kataki, the learned counsel refers to the proceeding of 01.09.1998 (Annexure-V) to project that in the Inquiry, the Management did not produce any witness or exhibited evidence to prove the charges. Instead one Jugadhar Hazarika who was the Branch Manager of the Tinsukia Branch was made the Presenting Officer and he was simply made to recite the allegations and each allegation is read, the Enquiry Officer offered the Presenting Officer for cross-examination by the charged employee. But since the delinquent declined to adduce any defence evidence without the placing of evidence by the Presenting Officer and he didn’t cross-examine the Presenting Officer, adverse conclusion was readily reached that the charges were proved. 7. The petitioner contends that the conclusions reached through such perfunctory process cannot be made the basis for any disciplinary order since no attempt was made by the Management to produce any witness or to prove any of the documents relied upon against the delinquent. Accordingly in the absence of evidence, the inquiry finding is contended to be perverse by the learned counsel. 8. Since the disciplinary authority didn’t prove the charges through cogent evidence, the Enquiry Officer based his adverse inference on the alleged failure of the delinquent to prove his innocence and the petitioner’s advocate Mr. S. Kataki submits that this was an unfair process where the burden was cast on the charged employee to prove his innocence instead of the charges being proved by the disciplinary authority. 9. However the bank’s advocate Mr. PN Goswami submits that since the delinquent admitted that he forwarded the loan proposals without due verification, it is a case of admission of guilt and therefore he argues that evidence was not required to be adduced to prove the charges. 10. 9. However the bank’s advocate Mr. PN Goswami submits that since the delinquent admitted that he forwarded the loan proposals without due verification, it is a case of admission of guilt and therefore he argues that evidence was not required to be adduced to prove the charges. 10. On the peculiar procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer to offer the Presenting Officer for cross-examination by the delinquent, the Bank’s lawyer submits that even if this part of the procedure is assumed to be irregular, the court must adopt a pragmatic approach and the minor irregularity can be ignored for greater cause of justice. 11. The dismissal from service is one of the penalties mentioned under Rule 46A(VI) of the Apex Bank’s (Staff) Rules, 1980 where sub rule (b) provides that no employee should be subjected to any of the penalties without the charges being formulated in writing and the employee being provided with a reasonable opportunity to rebut the charges. Therefore, conforming to the principle of audi alteram partem is a requirement of the Staff Rules, applicable for disciplinary proceeding. 12. As can be noticed in the delinquent’s replies to the individual charges, the charged employee explained the circumstances under which he forwarded the loan proposals and stated that he did so on instruction of the Branch Manager. The reply also mentioned that even before the loans were sanctioned, the charged employee informed the General Manager that if the proposals were irregular, the same be returned without sanctioning the loans. Moreover allegation of victimization by the superior officers was also claimed by the delinquent in his reply. Therefore, it is clear that there was no admission of guilt by the charged employee. 13. But although a departmental enquiry is a quasi judicial proceeding and the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function, no attempt was made in the inquiry proceeding to present any witness or to exhibit the documents which may have substantiated the delinquent’s guilt. Moreover, the Presenting Officer was treated as a witness and was offered for cross-examination to the delinquent. Through such strange process, the Enquiry Officer without any recorded evidence concluded that the charges were proved and on this basis, the delinquent was punished. 14. The writ court while considering the legality of a departmental proceeding, will verify whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on some evidence. Through such strange process, the Enquiry Officer without any recorded evidence concluded that the charges were proved and on this basis, the delinquent was punished. 14. The writ court while considering the legality of a departmental proceeding, will verify whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on some evidence. Interference will be justified only when conclusion is reached perversely without any evidence or the conclusion is such that, it can’t be reached reasonably by a common man in ordinary circumstances. 15. As was noted earlier, the Management didn’t produce any witness in the Enquiry. On this aspect the Bank’s lawyer submits that since the case is based on written communications, those can be a reasonable basis for the conclusion reached against the delinquent. But what is seen in the present case is that even these documents were not produced and admitted into evidence. Consequently, the delinquent was denied the opportunity to rebut the documents or to make his submission, Therefore this appears to be a case of no evidence rather than a case of irregular evidence, since none of the documents were admitted as evidence in the inquiry proceeding. 16. The Bank’s lawyer relies upon State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Mangalik reported in (2002) 3 SCC 443 to project that prejudice wasn’t caused and therefore the legality of the inquiry proceeding cannot be assailed on the ground that evidences were not presented by the disciplinary authority. But the cited case relates to non-furnishing of relevant documents, whereas present is a case where no evidence whatsoever was adduced in the inquiry proceeding. Therefore I feel that the decision in Ramesh Chandra Mangalik (Supra) will have no application to the facts of the present case. 17. The respondents cite Orissa Mining Corporation Vs. Ananda Chandra Prusty (1996) 11 SCC 600 to contend that in a given case the burden of proof may be shifted to the delinquent and it depends upon the reply to the charges. But in the present case, the delinquent merely explained the circumstances under which the loan proposals were sent and he never admitted his guilt. Therefore in this case, the employer was duty bound to establish the charges through cogent evidence in the inquiry proceeding and the alleged failure of the delinquent to rebut the charges without those being proved cannot be an acceptable basis, to draw an adverse inference against the delinquent. 18. Therefore in this case, the employer was duty bound to establish the charges through cogent evidence in the inquiry proceeding and the alleged failure of the delinquent to rebut the charges without those being proved cannot be an acceptable basis, to draw an adverse inference against the delinquent. 18. Before inflicting any penalty against any employees, the Bank was obliged to afford a reasonable opportunity, which in my understanding will require proving the charges through cogent evidence. But here during the enquiry, the allegation were only recited by the Presenting Officer and thereafter the delinquent was asked to cross-examine the Presenting Officer. But such process doesn’t in any way prove the charges and more importantly, reasonable opportunity was denied to the delinquent to rebut the charges. Moreover as the concerned documents were never produced or admitted into evidence in the inquiry, the delinquent had no opportunity to object to those documents. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, the charges were never proved and the conclusion reached are mere inferences and conjunctures. Moreover permitting cross-examination of the Presenting Officer does not certainly a mount to affording reasonable opportunity to the charged employee. Therefore the conclusions are found to have been reached on surmises and conjuncture and it clearly is a case of perverse conclusion. 19. In view of above, the impugned proceeding is held to be vitiated in law and consequently the dismissal order based on such vitiated finding is quashed. But as the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 31.10.2007, the respondents needn’t reinstate him and considering that no service was received by the employer, for the intervening period, back wages need not be paid to the petitioner. But respondents must give full superannuation benefits by notionally treating the petitioner to have continued in service until he reached the age of superannuation. It is ordered accordingly. 20. With the above direction, the case stands allowed without any order on cost.