ORDER The petitioner, in the present writ application, seeks quashing of an order dated 27.09.2003 passed by the Secretary of Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), Patna whereby major punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon him. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the appellate order dated 15.09.2011 and 11.11.2011 whereby the appellate authority has rejected the petitioners appeal against the impugned order imposing punishment and upon reconsideration again affirmed the said order imposing punishment. 2. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as an Assistant under the Board. He was deputed by the Board along with two other employees to an evaluation centre, i.e., Murlidhar High School, Jehanabad where evaluation of answer sheets was going on, vide memo No. 334 dated 15.04.1998. It appears that certain serious irregularities were detected in course of evaluation by local District Administration. A raid was conducted by the Sub divisional Officer, Jehanabad who found certain answer sheets being carried outside the evaluation centre. Few answer sheets were seized and first information report was instituted. The Centre Superintendent of the evaluation centre, this petitioner, two other persons sent on deputation by the Board, and a teacher of the concerned school were made accused in the first information report. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet vide memo No. 48 dated 10.07.1998 containing altogether 10 charges. 3. The petitioner filed his reply to the charges denying the allegation against him and taking a plea that responsibility of evaluation was mainly on the centre Superintendent and District Education Officer, as per the Evaluation Centre Conduct Directory, 1998 and the responsibility of the Board staff was related only to the payment to the persons engaged in the evaluation work. He is also said to have demanded relevant papers on which charges were framed. It is specific case of the petitioner that though an enquiry officer was appointed, no detailed enquiry was held, no witnesses were called, no documents were supplied and vide memo dated 07.11.2000 the respondent No.3 asked the petitioner to show cause as to why punishment of reduction in rank be not imposed upon him. In the said notice dated 07.11.2000, the Secretary of the Board indicated that most of the charges had been found to be proved by the enquiry officer. 4. In the said notice dated 07.11.2000, the Secretary of the Board indicated that most of the charges had been found to be proved by the enquiry officer. 4. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ application vide CWJC No. 11689 of 2000. This court vide order dated 23.11.2000 allowed the writ application quashing part of the order dated 07.11.2000 whereby reduction in rank was sought to be imposed upon the petitioner. This court gave the petitioner liberty to raise all other questions in the writ application in the second show cause before the authority concerned. This court in the said order dated 23.11.2000 further observed, “it is needless to say that the authorities concerned shall consider all questions the raised and disposed it of in accordance with law.” Thereafter, vide memo dated 08.12.2000 the offending part of the order dated 23.11.2000 was deleted. Nearly, two and half years thereafter the petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report and a copy of the first information report instituted against him, in the name of evidence in the departmental proceeding. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 30.06.2003 saying that there was absolutely no oral enquiry held and without examination of witnesses, without giving the petitioner opportunity of cross- examination merely on the basis of first information report, the action was sought to be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner took a plea before respondent No.3, the Secretary of the Board, that the first information report and seizure list of the first information report themselves could not be treated as evidence. On 27.09.2003, thereafter, the impugned order was issued. 5. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Board through its Chairman. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this court by filing CWJC No. 5098 of 2008 challenging the said order dated 27.09.2003. Since the appeal was pending at that point of time, this court by an order dated 07.03.2011 disposed of the writ application with a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within three months, in compliance whereof, vide order dated 15.09.2011, the appellate authority rejected the petitioners appeal. By a subsequent order dated 11.11.2011 communicated to the petitioner under the signature of the Secretary of the Board, the appellate authority refused to re-consider the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Board. By a subsequent order dated 11.11.2011 communicated to the petitioner under the signature of the Secretary of the Board, the appellate authority refused to re-consider the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Board. It has been stated that the then Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board was appointed as enquiry officer, who had asked the petitioner to appear before him on 19.11.1998 and submit his reply, oral or in writing or oral to the memo of charge and he submitted his enquiry report. Second show cause notice was issued thereafter. It has been admitted that copy of the enquiry report and copy of the first information report with seizure list was thereafter made available to him on 14.06.2003, and in view of the nature of the allegation major punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. 7. Keeping in view the assertion made in the writ application that no enquiry was held by the enquiry officer before submission of the enquiry report, I had called for the original records pertaining to the departmental proceeding. I find from the records of the departmental proceeding that no enquiry of any kind was conducted by the enquiry officer. It appears that there was none on behalf of the Board to prove the charges framed against the petitioner before the enquiry officer. No oral evidence was taken nor any documentary evidence was adduced. 8. I have perused the report of the enquiry officer which was supplied to the petitioner through letter dated 14.06.2003 whereby he was asked to submit his show cause within five days. Out of ten charges, charges No. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 have been found to be not proved. Charges No. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 10 have been found to be partially proved though at the bottom it has been mentioned that charges No. 1 to 4 have been found not proved and charges No. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have been found to be partially proved. On a perusal of the charge sheet, it would appear that as a matter of fact charges No. 2 and 3 did not contain any allegation of misconduct against the petitioner and they are mere statement of facts without containing any specific allegation against the petitioner of any omission or commission. On a perusal of the charge sheet, it would appear that as a matter of fact charges No. 2 and 3 did not contain any allegation of misconduct against the petitioner and they are mere statement of facts without containing any specific allegation against the petitioner of any omission or commission. Charge No. 1, as indicated above, has not been found to be proved. Charge No. 4, which contains direct allegation against the petitioner, could not be proved. In charge No.5, there is allegation that petitioner was involved in unfair means. This charge has been held by the enquiry officer to be not related to the petitioner. Charge No. 6 and 7 have been found by the enquiry officer to be proved but there is absolutely no basis to reach to such finding as the finding is merely based on conjectures and surmises. Charge No. 9 has not been proved, as indicated above. Charge No. 10 mentions only the fact about petitioners arrest in connection with the first information report instituted at the instance of Sub divisional Officer. In my opinion, charge No. 10 is not a charge at all. 9. On bare perusal of the report of the enquiry officer, it would appear that the findings are based on no evidence and findings of the enquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges are in my opinion perverse. As a matter of fact, there was no material produced in course of the disciplinary proceeding to prove the charges against the petitioner. 10. Mr. Amresh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the disciplinary authority, while issuing the show cause, did not take into account the fact that there was no material before the enquiry officer to reach to a finding of guilt and he wrongly issued the show cause notice dated 07.11.2000. He secondly submits that the petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the said show cause but the disciplinary authority, without considering the petitioner?s reply, imposed the punishment by the impugned order which is cryptic, non speaking and unreasoned. He further submits that the appellate authority also did not consider the points raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal and dismissed the appeal without assigning any reason and without dealing with the points raised by him. He further submits that the appellate authority also did not consider the points raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal and dismissed the appeal without assigning any reason and without dealing with the points raised by him. He submits that these orders require interference by this court in view of repeated pronouncements by the Supreme Court and this court that an order passed by an authority exercising quasi judicial powers must be reasoned and speaking, reflecting application of mind. 11. Mr. Piyush Lall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent- Board, on the other hand, defending the impugned order, has submitted that since the charges framed against the petitioner were based on documents only, no oral examination of any witness was required. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the onus was upon the petitioner to explain his conduct. He has relied upon a Supreme Court judgment reported in (1997) 4 SCC 565 (Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority & Ors). He contends that the petitioner had not discharged his duties as responsible employee of the Board to safeguard the interest of the Board. The judgement, in my opinion, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There the allegation against the employee of a bank was that he failed to safeguard the interest of the bank by securing adequate security before grant of loan to the dealers which was based upon documentary evidence and was part of the record of the proceeding, copies of which had been supplied to him. In the present case, as a matter of fact, there was no enquiry at all. Further, the charges against the petitioner, in the present case, were such that they required an enquiry into the petitioner?s role and his omissions and commissions, which was certainly not done. 12. Learned counsel for the Board has further submitted that the action of the Board need not require interference only on the basis that no documents were supplied to the petitioner in course of enquiry and he was not given an opportunity of cross- examination. He submits that petitioner has neither pleaded nor proved some real prejudice caused to him because of non examination of witnesses or non supply of any document. He submits that petitioner has neither pleaded nor proved some real prejudice caused to him because of non examination of witnesses or non supply of any document. He contends that as the petitioner has failed to establish any prejudice caused to him because of certain infirmities in the departmental enquiry, he cannot raise the issue of violation of principles of natural justice for the sake of argument only. This submission is not acceptable. I had the occasion to go through the records of disciplinary proceeding. To say the least, in my opinion, there was absolutely no enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that first information report and seizure list cannot in itself be a proof in support of the charges. The contents of the first information report or the allegations made in the charge sheet will have to be proved before the enquiry officer even on the standards of preponderance of probabilities. The charges against the petitioner were grave in nature touching his integrity there being allegation of corruption also. Such charges require to be proved to the hilt even in a departmental proceeding as it brings civil and criminal consequences both upon the employee concerned. 14. Learned counsel for the Board has also relied upon another Supreme Court judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 364 (State Bank of Patiala & Ors v. S. K. Sharma) to contend that a disciplinary action should not be interfered with on the ground of violation of rules/ regulations/ statutory provisions governing such enquiries unless the provision, violation of which has been complained is of substantial in nature. Where such violation is merely procedural in character, no interference is required. He may be right in his submission so far as principles of law is concerned but this court is faced with a situation where there was no enquiry at all and the report of the enquiry officer is based on no evidence. The second show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, which records findings of guilt, is equally bad as the findings are perverse being based on no evidence. The order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are completely non speaking and without dealing with stand of the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice or in the memo of appeal. The order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are completely non speaking and without dealing with stand of the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice or in the memo of appeal. As a matter of fact, at all stages, right from the framing of charge till passing of the appellate order, there are infirmities. 15. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent- Board that since the disciplinary authority agreed with the report of the enquiry officer, he was not required to pass a detailed order while imposing punishment upon the petitioner. 16. There are two aspects of the matter. Firstly, it is not apparent from the wordings of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 07.11.2000 as to whether it was issued while agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer or not. At some points, the disciplinary authority has expressed his disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer. Further, the disciplinary authority has not referred to any finding available in the departmental enquiry to reach to his finding and it seems that his findings are based on the contents of the first information report only. In such circumstances, when the petitioner had submitted his reply to the disciplinary authority, he had a duty to pass a reasoned order on such reply before reaching to a finding to the petitioners guilt. 17. In my opinion, non recording of reasons on the petitioners representation amounts to denial of opportunity to the petitioner of consideration of his representation, before arriving at the finding of his guilt. Lastly, on a perusal of the impugned order imposing punishment and the charge sheet, it would be evident that the same are cryptic, non speaking and do not disclose any application of mind. 18. For the discussions, as made above, this writ application is allowed. The report of the enquiry officer is quashed. The orders of the disciplinary authority dated 27.09.2003 and appellate authority dated 15.09.2011 and 11.11.2011 are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits accordingly. Let the original records of the concerned disciplinary proceeding be returned to Mr. Piyush Lall, learned counsel for the Board.