JUDGMENT : S.C. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 31.03.2006 (Annexure P/13) dismissing him from service and the order dated 08.02.2007 (Annexure P/15) passed by the Appellate Authority. 2. Brief facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Officer, Scale-I in the services of the respondent - Narmada Jhabua Grameen Bank on 01.05.1984. At the relevant point of time, when the misconduct has been alleged against him, he was posted as Bank Manager in Branch Rajpur, District Khargone i.e. with effect from 06.07.1999 to 11.09.2004. He was charge-sheeted on 22.06.2005 (Annexure P/1) under the provisions of Rule 38 of the Nimar Kshetriya Grameen Bank Officers & Employees Service Recruitment Rules, 2001. An enquiry was conducted against him on nine charges and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 11.02.2006 (Annexure P/10). Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.03.2006 (Annexure P/11). The petitioner did submit his reply on 23.03.2006 (Annexure P/12). Thereafter, order dated 31.03.2006 (Annexure P/13) has been passed dismissing the petitioner from service. 3. Various grounds have been raised in the present writ petition, but, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has argued before this Court that the disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner ex parte. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the document (Annexure R/1) filed by the respondent - Bank i.e. enquiry proceedings and the same reflects that the petitioner was very much present on 14.10.2005 before the Enquiry Officer. He was present on the next date of enquiry i.e. 16.11.2005 and the enquiry was postponed for 16.12.2005. On 16.12.2005, the petitioner was absent, as he was not well and submitted a letter dated 17.12.2005 along with the Medical Certificate to the Enquiry Officer, explaining his absence in the department enquiry on 16.12.2005. The petitioner's grievance is that thereafter, the enquiry was fixed for 20.12.2005 and no notice of any kind was received by him at any point of time nor he was informed of the date of enquiry as 20.12.2005. The petitioner's grievance is that thereafter, the enquiry was fixed for 20.12.2005 and no notice of any kind was received by him at any point of time nor he was informed of the date of enquiry as 20.12.2005. This Court has also gone through the entire original record of the departmental enquiry proceedings and the same establishes that the petitioner was very much present on 16.11.2005; he was not present in the enquiry on 16.12.2005; an application dated 17.12.2005 along with Medical Certificate was received by the Bank on 17.12.2005; the next date of enquiry was fixed as 20.12.2005; and the petitioner has certainly not at all received any notice about the date of hearing, as reflected from the record. Relevant part of the enquiry proceeding (Annexure R/1) at Page 179 reads, as under:- 4. The aforesaid minutes of the department enquiry proceedings also establish that the Bank has not informed the petitioner at all about the date of enquiry, which was fixed for 20.12.2005. The Bank has proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and concluded the departmental enquiry on 20.12.2005. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank has argued before this Court that all sincere efforts were made by the Bank to inform the petitioner about the next date of hearing. However, in spite of all sincere efforts, the Bank was not able to inform the date of enquiry to the petitioner. He submits that in light of judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Hemant Kumar reported in (2011) 11 SCC 355 , question of setting aside the enquiry proceedings does not arise. 6. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Hemant Kumar (supra). In the aforesaid case, the delinquent employee has admitted his guilt in writing and once orally, and in those circumstances, the Apex Court has held that the order setting aside the departmental enquiry by the Tribunal to be bad in law; whereas in the present case, there was no admission at any point of time by the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not informed about the date of enquiry, which was scheduled to be held on 20.12.2005, on which date the Bank has proceeded ex parte against him. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not informed about the date of enquiry, which was scheduled to be held on 20.12.2005, on which date the Bank has proceeded ex parte against him. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ex parte proceeding and the subsequent orders passed in the departmental enquiry proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. 7. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent - Bank on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others v. G. Annadurai reported in (2009) 13 SCC 469 . In the aforesaid case, notice was served by registered post upon the employee concerned and in the present case, no such notice was sent either by the registered post or any notice was received by the petitioner at any point of time, and therefore, the reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the respondent - Bank is again distinguishable on facts. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank has lastly placed reliance over the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Rawel Singh reported in (2008) 4 SCC 42 . In the aforesaid case, the employee was avoiding enquiry and in these circumstances, the Apex Court has held that the action of the Enquiry Officer in proceeding ex parte against the concerned employee was justified. 9. In the present case, the employee was not at all avoiding enquiry. Non-appearance of the petitioner on one day on account of illness can never be treated as non-cooperation by the employee nor it can be said that the employee was avoiding enquiry. On the contrary, unholy haste was shown by the employer to proceed ex parte against the petitioner and in all fairness in the disciplinary enquiry proceeding, the employee concerned should have been provided proper opportunity of hearing and thereafter the respondents should have proceeded in the matter. 10. The respondent - Bank has also very categorically admitted in the reply that in spite of all efforts, the notice could not be served upon the petitioner of the next date (20.12.2005) of enquiry; meaning thereby, there is an admission on the part of the respondent - Bank that the petitioner was not served with the notice about the next date of hearing of enquiry i.e. 20.12.2005. The petitioner was not able to appear in the enquiry on 16.12.2005, as he was not well and submitted a letter dated 17.12.2005 along with the Medical Certificate to the Enquiry Officer, explaining his absence in the department enquiry on 16.12.2005. 11. In the absence of any proof brought before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent - Bank that the employee was informed about the next date of hearing i.e. 20.12.2005, in the considered opinion of this Court, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Enquiry Officer for proceeding ahead afresh from the stage when the petitioner was treated ex parte in the enquiry. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The dismissal order dated 31.03.2006 (Annexure P/13) passed by respondent No. 1 and the appellate order dated 08.02.2007 (Annexure P/15) passed by the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed. The respondent - Bank is free to conduct the enquiry right from the stage, when the petitioner was declared ex parte, and shall be free to take appropriate action in the matter, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.