JUDGMENT : P. K. Saikia, J. This petition has been filed against the reference dated 07.01.2013, rendered by the third learned Member, Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati, (in short, CAT, Guwahati Bench) in T.A. No. 4/2011 dismissing the aforesaid proceeding. 2. We have heard Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. In order to appreciate the dispute in this proceeding, we find it necessary to have a look at the events leading to the present proceeding. In 1981, the petitioner herein was appointed as “Special Assistant” in Ghaziabad Branch of Vijaya Bank. He worked in the aforesaid Bank up to 1987. The petitioner claims that his duty as Special Assistant was Managerial and Supervisory in nature which is evident from the bipartite settlement dated 17.09.1984 which clearly outlines the functions of Special Assistant. 4. Since said bipartite agreement in regard to rights and duties of Special Assistant has huge bearing on the dispute in the present proceeding, same is reproduced below:- “Special Assistants Special assistants will be accountable and responsible for running of the department/section under them and their duties will involve looking after and checking the work of other clerk or clerks and sub-staff and will include: (1) Passing independently cash, cheques up to Rs 10,000/- and clearing and transfer cheques, vouchers, etc., (whether credits or debits) up to and including Rs 25,000/- (or any higher limit fixed by the bank on its own discretion). Passing will include verification of signatures and scrutiny as to the correctness of endorsements on and other particulars of such instruments. (2) Signing vouchers, cheques, drafts, mail transfers, pay orders, advices such as non-payment advices, inter-branch fate calling advices, bill schedules, demand notices, statements certificates, etc. (3) Checking all vouchers, advices, statements, cheques, drafts, etc., bills and books of accounts including current, savings and other ledgers, cash, postal and revenue stamps, franking machine balances. (4) Checking current, savings and other ledgers, PROVIDED that if any additional allowance is paid to any employee/s under any existing system in a bank for ledger checking, such payment and ledger checking system shall continue undisturbed, and such continuance shall preclude any claims by a workman for a change in status. (5) Checking the coding and decoding of telegrams (excluding check symbols or ciphers). (5) Checking the coding and decoding of telegrams (excluding check symbols or ciphers). ‘Checking’ would mean verifying that the material checked is in order in all respects and also includes initialling the same for authentication. (6) Discharging, endorsing cheques, bills, etc. (7) Inspecting go downs (only in banks where such work is already being done by workmen). For the purpose of efficient and effective functioning of the section or department, the special assistant shall ensure that all acts, things and steps necessary therefore are taken by himself or by the clerks placed under him and shall ensure that, wherever necessary: (a) Reminders are sent on time and followed up; (b) Pass sheets/books are filled up and issued promptly; (c) Deposits are renewed on due dates or reminders sent to the parties; (d) Standing instructions are complied with; (e) Bills are accepted and due dates diarised/advised and followed up; (f) Interest, commissions and service charges are collected; (g) Proceeds of bills are received or remitted promptly; (h) Confirmation of balances of accounts of the customers and its follow-up; (i) All securities relating to the department/section of which the special assistant is in charge are secured or kept in proper custody and properly handed over to the authorised person at the close of the day; (j) Balances promptly taken, tallied and reported and followed up and also returns submitted; (k) Advices and/or duplicate advices/summaries are issued/responded promptly, whenever called for; (l) Checking the proper recording of entries and all relevant particulars in regard to accounts opened under due authorization.” 5. On 10.07.1987, the petitioner joined HUDCO as Senior Financial Officer. He was thereafter absorbed in HUDCO in April, 1988.The petitioner was promoted to Assistant Chief (Finance) on 06.01.1992 and on 03.07.1996, he was again promoted to the post of Deputy Chief (Finance). On 18.08.2000, he was again promoted to the post of Chief (Finance) HUDCO. 6. While serving as Chief (Finance), in 2003, he applied as a departmental candidate for the post of Executive Director (Finance). He was assessed to be the best of the candidates and as such, he was placed at the top of the list of the candidates vying for said post. On 24.03.2003, he was appointed as above with condition that he would be on probation for a period of 1 (one) year from the date of appointment. 7. He was assessed to be the best of the candidates and as such, he was placed at the top of the list of the candidates vying for said post. On 24.03.2003, he was appointed as above with condition that he would be on probation for a period of 1 (one) year from the date of appointment. 7. While serving as Executive Director (Finance) HUDCO on probation, a Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and in that connection, a charge sheet dated 16.04.2004 was served upon him alleging his committing illegalities/irregularities on three counts, the prime charge being that while he applied to the post of Executive Director (Finance) as a departmental candidate, the petitioner furnished false information regarding his experience. 8. In that connection, it may be stated that only those departmental officers who had the experience of 20 years in executive capacity in the bank were asked to apply for the post of Executive Director (Finance). It is alleged that the petitioner did not have 20 years of experience in working in executive capacity since during the period from 1981 to 1987, the petitioner was working as Special Assistant and as such, in 2003, he did not have requisite qualification and experience, necessary for consideration for appointment to the post of Executive Director (Finance) during the period between 1981 and 1987. 9. It is alleged that suppressing such facts, he applied for post of Executive Director (Finance) and got selected as well. In due course, the inquiry officer submitted his report vide inquiry report dated 03.03.2006, wherein he held that charge No. 2 and 3 were not proved. However, in respect of charge No. 1, he held that such charge was proved and his finding was in the following manner:--- “the inquiry believes that the Co did not give any information which was false but, it was conveyed with the spirit that his experience in Vijaya Bank was in executive capacity, whereas the inquiry has come to the conclusion that it was not so and, therefore, in this manner the information was not true which can be termed false” 10. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding of the inquiry officer and imposed penalty of removal from service. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding of the inquiry officer and imposed penalty of removal from service. An appeal was preferred before the Board of Directors but the Board of Directors was pleased to reject the appeal in the meeting held on 19.09.2006 which was conveyed to the petitioner by letter dated 06.10.2006. 11. The orders rendered by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were challenged in WP(C) No. 282/2007 (K.R. Alva vs. HUDCO and 4 Ors) and by the judgment dated 23.06.2009, the writ petition was allowed directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with consequential benefits including the back wages. 12. The HUDCO challenged the judgment preferring an appeal which was registered as WA No. 373/2009 alleging that prior to the hearing of the writ petition, the HUDCO was brought within the purview of CAT, Gauhati Bench. On this technical ground, the writ appeal of HUDCO as allowed by order dated 01.11.2011. But HUDCO was directed to pay Rs. 1, 00,000/- to the petitioner for his suffering. 13. When the case was remanded to the CAT, Gauhati Bench, it was registered as T.A. No. 4/2011. The Division Bench of the Tribunal passed separate final orders on 07.06.2012. While Judicial Member allowed the application in favour of the petitioner/applicant, the Administrative Member, dismissed the same for which the matter was referred to 3rd Member, who by order dated 07.01.2013 decided against the petitioner/applicant. Thus, the CAT Gauhati Bench by majority of 2:1 ruled against the petitioner. 14. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this appeal contending that judgment of the CAT, Gauhati Bench is unsustainable since it runs counter to the established principles of law holding the field in question. 15. Mr. Tiwari, in his long and detailed argument tried to convince this court that the duty, assigned to the Special Assistant, is executive in nature and bipartite agreement is the clear proof of the same. That apart, DW 2 Sri Sadananda Shetti (former Chairman and Managing Director of Vijaya Bank) supported the contention that duties, assigned to Special Assistant, are Supervisory and Executive in nature. 16. However, all those facts were ignored by the Tribunal placing enormous reliance on the letter dated 14.11.2003 and 28.01.2004 wherein it is stated that duty, assigned to the Special Assistant, is clerical in nature. The 3rd letter viz., the letter dated 28.01.2004 written by General Manager, Vijaya Bank was also relied on. 16. However, all those facts were ignored by the Tribunal placing enormous reliance on the letter dated 14.11.2003 and 28.01.2004 wherein it is stated that duty, assigned to the Special Assistant, is clerical in nature. The 3rd letter viz., the letter dated 28.01.2004 written by General Manager, Vijaya Bank was also relied on. The contention of those letters were accepted by Tribunal blissfully ignoring the fact that letters were not proved in accordance with prescription of law and as such, no reliance could have been placed on such letters. 17. According to Mr. PK Tiwari, a comparative study of all those two sets of evidence would make it more than clear that the evidence rendered by DW 2 is found more acceptable than the other set of evidence and the evidence, so rendered by DW 2, draws more and more support from the bipartite agreement. All those firmly pronounce that the duties, assigned to Special Assistant, are executive in nature. 18. He further submits that even if one assumes for the sake of argument for a moment that the duty of petitioner as Special Assistant was not executive in nature, yet, in view of information, furnished by the petitioner in the application seeking appointment to the post of Executive Director (Finance), he cannot be said to have furnished false information which is evident from the contradictory opinions, rendered by the inquiry officer on such a vital aspect. 19. In that context, it has been stated that the inquiry officer at one point of time clearly opined that the petitioner did not furnish false information while applying for post of Executive Director (Finance), at another point of time he draws presumption from the information furnished that since the information in the application was not true, same needs to be treated as false and in that connection, the inquiry officer considered the spirit in which the information was furnished. 20. 20. When the inquiry officer was not sure as to whether information furnished by the petitioner herein in the application seeking appointment to the post aforesaid was false or not, it is utterly unfortunate to condemn the petitioner for such unproved allegation putting him in between devil and deep sea, more so, when his career graph unmistakably demonstrates that he served the bank in question with profound efficiency which is also supported by DW 2, the erstwhile the Chairman and Managing Director of the HUDCO. 21. According to Mr. Tiwari, the opinion, rendered by Judicial Member of the CAT, Gauhati Bench is close to the truth which further demonstrates the claim, projected by the present petitioner in the proceeding in hand, deserves acceptance of the Court. He, therefore, urges this court to quash the judgment of the Tribunal as well as order of the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service and the order appellate authority affirming the order of the disciplinary authority and thereafter to restore the petitioner to the post he would have occupied had he not been so removed from service. 22. Mr. T J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondents , however, contends that the duties , assigned to Special Assistant in not executive in nature and as such, the petitioner who worked as a Special Assistant from 1981 to 1987 did not have necessary qualification to apply for the post aforesaid in 2003. Being so, the experience which the appellant/petitioner had gathered while working as above from 1981 to 1987 cannot be treated as experience in executive capacity. 23. He further submits that since the duty attached to the post of Special Assistant, Vijaya Bank, is not executive in nature and the petitioner knew it very well while furnishing the information, sought for by the HUDCO who wanted to fill up the post of Executive Director (Finance) with an officer having 20 years of working experience in executive capacity and therefore, having applied for the aforesaid post, the petitioner resorted to falsehood. As such, the judgment in question does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and resultantly, the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed. 24. We have considered the rival submissions, having regard to the materials on record including the advertisement to the post in question and judgment in question. As such, the judgment in question does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and resultantly, the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed. 24. We have considered the rival submissions, having regard to the materials on record including the advertisement to the post in question and judgment in question. A careful perusal of the advertisement aforementioned reveals that the qualification required for the post of ED (Finance) was working experience of 20 years in executive capacity in any financial institution/bank and not experience of working in executive cadre of such institution. 25. So situated, let us consider whether the petitioner/appellant herein has such qualification or not. It is not in dispute that since 1987 to 2003, the petitioner had been discharging his duty from executive post. We have also found that from 1981 to 1987 the petitioner had been doing duty as Special Assistant of Vijaya Bank. A perusal of the duty of Special Assistant, as recorded in the bipartite agreement, reveals that a Special Assistant is accountable and responsible for running of the department/section under him. 26. He also responsible for securing service effectively and efficiently from the clerks placed under him. We have also found that his duties also include looking after the work of other clerks and sub-staff placed under him. More importantly, he is empowered to pass independently cash, cheques upto Rs. 10,000/-. So also, clearing and transferring vouchers etc upto Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively. 27. In that connection, we also find it necessary to look into “The Concise Oxford Thesaurus” to know what are the synonymous of the term “Executive”. According to “The Concise Oxford Thesaurus” the synonymous of the term “Executive” are “ administrative, the decision making, directing, controlling , managerial and law making ” The dictionary meaning of the “Executive” appears to be very similar since on perusal of such a term in different dictionaries, we have found the term “Executive” means the decision-making, managerial, management, administrative, supervisory, exclusive and model. We have already found that there is no dispute over the fact that the function of Special Assistant in Vijaya Bank is supervisory in nature. 28. We have already found that there is no dispute over the fact that the function of Special Assistant in Vijaya Bank is supervisory in nature. 28. On a careful perusal of the bipartite settlement so far it relates to duties/functions/responsibilities of the Special Assistants, in the light of aforesaid discussion, one would find invariably that the duties, assigned to the Special Assistants, being supervisory type, can also be treated as executive in nature. The evidence, rendered by DW 2, Sri Sadananda Shetti makes such a conclusion more and more inevitable. 29. It is worth noting here that the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has taken serious objection of Tribunal placing huge reliance on the letters dated 14.11.2003 and 28.11.2003 as well as letter dated 28.01.2004 contending that all those documents were not proved in accordance with prescription of law and as such, the learned Tribunal could not have looked into those letters in ascertaining the allegations against the petitioner/appellant. 30. we have considered such allegations in the light of materials on record as well as submissions advanced by the parties and found reason to concur with the submissions, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant herein since in our opinion too, without proving those documents in accordance with the prescription of law, the Tribunal could not have relied on those documents in ascertaining the allegations against the petitioner. 31. In view of our forgoing discussion, we have found that there are materials on record to conclude that the experience which the petitioner/appellant had gathered while working as Special Assistant in Vijaya Bank was executive in nature but to support contra view, no reliable evidence could be brought on record by HUDCO. Being so, we are to hold that in 2003, the petitioner had the requisite qualification to apply for the post of Executive Director (Finance). 32. Even if one assumes only for the sake of argument for a moment that duty, assigned to petitioner as Special Assistant, was not executive in nature, yet, in view of information, furnished in the application, filed by the petitioner/appellant, offering his candidature to the post of ED (Finance), it needs to be concluded that the petitioner/appellant never furnished false information in his application seeking appointment to the post of ED (Finance). 33. 33. In that connection, we also find it necessary to have a look at the finding of the inquiry officer in regard to 1st charge. For ready reference, same is reproduced below:- “the inquiry officer believes that the Co did not give any information which was false but, it was conveyed with the spirit that his experience in Vijaya Bank was in executive capacity, whereas the inquiry has come to the conclusion that it was not so and, therefore, in this manner the information was not true which can be termed false” 34. Such finding, we find, are contradictory in nature. While in one place, the inquiry officer found that the appellant/petitioner did not give any false information while seeking appointment to the post aforesaid, yet, at another point of time, he found such information to be false one. This contradictory finding again demonstrates that the inquiry officer could not conclude if the appellant/petitioner really furnished false information while seeking appointment to the post of ED (Finance). 35. Being so, in our considered opinion, the finding of the inquiry officer holding the appellant/petitioner guilty of furnishing false information while seeking appointment to the post of ED (Finance) is found unsustainable and consequently, the decision of the appellate authority as well as the decision of the CAT, Gauhati Bench in TA No. 4/2011 are also found unsustainable and as such, all those findings are liable to be quashed and set aside. 36. The appellant/petitioner also attacked the enquiry in question stating that enquiry was conducted with mala fide intention. In that connection, he referred to his career graph to show that his rise in the HUDCO was quite meteoric and magnificent till 2003. Everything started to fall apart thereafter. In that regard, he contended that since 2003 he started having some problems with respondent No. 4 who allegedly wanted the petitioner to sanction a loan in violation of norms and procedures which was refused by the appellant/petitioner. 37. Since we have found that the enquiry under challenge is unsustainable on some other counts, we have already detailed hereinbefore, we are not inclined to probe such allegations as well. 38. In the result, we have found that the reliefs sought for in this petition needs to be granted by allowing the present petition. 39. Consequently, we set aside all the orders which were impugned in this proceeding. 40. 38. In the result, we have found that the reliefs sought for in this petition needs to be granted by allowing the present petition. 39. Consequently, we set aside all the orders which were impugned in this proceeding. 40. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post aforesaid immediately with all consequential benefits.