Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1032 (MP)

Harish Kumar Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2017-09-25

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2017
ORDER : This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No.19843/2014 (N.K. Jain Vs. State of M.P. & others) and W.P. No.18823/2014 (K.R. Ahirwar Vs. State of M.P. & others) as all these writ petitions are arising out of the same orders. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 10/11/2014 (Annexure-P/1) and 05/04/2014 (Annexure-P/2) passed by respondents No.1 and 3 respectively. 3. The petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Engineer and posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department, Sidhi. The petitioner is a graduate engineer and was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 13/03/2006 w.e.f. 14/07/2003. While the petitioner was posted as Sub Divisional Engineer, Bansagar Distributary Sub Division No.3, Semariya, Distt. Rewa under Bansagar Project from October, 2008 to June, 2012. In the said project even in surrounding and other project, Cantilever sign boards were put up indicating various parameters pertaining to canals which were part of these projects. The petitioner also requested for three canals involving twenty one sign boards. The actual procurement was to be done by the superior such as sanction for the item and the procedure acquiring these items. The officers at the petitioner's level do not have much role to play. The supervisor in their wisdom purchased these items from the authorised venders on the rate contract basis of the Laghu Udyog Nigam. As per the advice of superior, the items were utilized throughout the project. Thereafter a complaint was made to the department as well as to the Lokayukt Sangathan alleging irregularities in the matter of purchase of sign boards. The Lokayukt organization has registered a complaint against the petitioner and after enquiry the Lokayukt Organization vide communication dated 08/04/2013 recorded its due satisfaction and closed the case as nothing adverse has been found against the petitioner. However, on the basis of complaint made to the department, a show cause notice dated 10/10/2012 was issued by the Engineer-in-Chief to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the said show cause notice on 14/02/2012, however, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have issued charge sheet dated 09/05/2012 to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the said charge sheet on 17/07/2012. Thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed, however, the documents were not supplied to the petitioner in spite of his demand vide application dated 22/06/2012. The petitioner filed reply to the said charge sheet on 17/07/2012. Thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed, however, the documents were not supplied to the petitioner in spite of his demand vide application dated 22/06/2012. None of these materials which were sought to be used against the petitioner was provided and made available to him. 4. During the course of enquiry, statement of one Ram Gopal Mishra, Superintendent in the Office of Superintending Engineer, Bansagar Canal Circle has been recorded who also did not prove any of the documents nor any such material was placed in the regular departmental enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer supplied copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner along with covering letter dated 05/04/2014. The petitioner submitted his representation against the enquiry officer's report on 05/05/2014. As the Public Service Commission (PSC) is to be necessarily consulted and its advice sought, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the PSC on 04/08/2014. Thereafter the respondents have passed the order dated 10/11/2014 whereby the petitioner has been subjected to the penalty of reduction to the lower post of Sub Engineer. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present case, the consultation/concurrence of the Public Service Commission in the matter of passing of major penalty in the form of its advice was never made available to the petitioner which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that there is a violation of Rule 14(18) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1966'). He also submits that the mandatory requirement of sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the said rules, it is enjoined on the enquiry officer after government servant closes his case, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him has not at all been followed. For the said purpose, he relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Minister of Finance and another Vs. S.B. Ramesh, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 227 and Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India and another, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 484 . For the said purpose, he relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Minister of Finance and another Vs. S.B. Ramesh, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 227 and Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India and another, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 484 . He also submits that the respondents have not supplied him copy of the report submitted by the P.S.C. which is in violation of Rule 15 of Rules of 1966 and for the said purpose, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. R.P. Singh, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 340 . So far as charges are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Works Department Manual defines the duties and powers of the Sub Divisional Officer and as per the said Regulations, the petitioner has no power for purchase and for that matter to call any tender. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the core of the charges i.e. purchase of Cantilever Sign Board instead of stipulated 90 cm x 75 cm as contained in Technical Circle No.73 is against the department and it is provided specifically therein that bigger sign boards are to be used in bigger project. Thus, the very material which is sought to be used against the petitioner is, in fact, supports his case. The entire issue was examined on the instance of Lokayukt wherein a committee headed by the Chief Engineer of Basin and Superintending Engineer of Project has thoroughly probed into the matter and cleared petitioner. The Chief Engineer on 17/02/2013 has submitted a detailed communication to the Legal Adviser of the Lokayukt clearly stating that the petitioner has not purchased those sign boards and hence, it is not correct to allege anything connected with the purchase of sign boards on the petitioner. Lokayukt thereafter examining the matter has closed the case against the petitioner on 03/04/2013. In the enquiry report also there is no direct allegation against the petitioner. He further submits that as per the communication of Engineer-in-Chief with regard to the responsibility of the officials authorizing procurement are the only responsible persons against whom delinquency can be fastened. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. 7. In the enquiry report also there is no direct allegation against the petitioner. He further submits that as per the communication of Engineer-in-Chief with regard to the responsibility of the officials authorizing procurement are the only responsible persons against whom delinquency can be fastened. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. 7. The respondents have filed their reply and in the said reply the respondents have taken a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of the alternate remedy. It has been stated that the reasons assigned for not availing the remedy is not proper and appropriate. It is not correct to say that if the appeal is filed against the orders impugned, then the same would be heard and decided by the authority. The impugned order has been issued in the name of Governor but not placed before the cabinet and there is no approval taken from the cabinet but if the appeal would be filed, the same would be decided by the cabinet. It has further been stated that the contention of the petitioner that it is a case of no evidence is not correct and, therefore, denied. The enquiry officer in its report has found the charges proved against the petitioner on the basis of the statement of departmental witness namely Ram Gopal Mishra. The statement of said departmental witness has been cross-examined by the petitioner himself. The enquiry officer has considered the entire evidence available on record and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. The respondents have also denied that there is a violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner has been afforded an opportunity of hearing on every stage which is required. The petitioner has although alleged that he has not been supplied the documents which were relevant to defend but the petitioner failed to show as to when he has made any demand of documents which have some relevance but not supplied to him. The petitioner has also failed to show that how prejudice has been caused to him in absence of the documents. 8. The petitioner has also failed to show that how prejudice has been caused to him in absence of the documents. 8. So far as the objection raised by the petitioner that he was not provided the defence assistance is concerned, the respondents have stated that in the departmental enquiry if a demand is made by the delinquent to take defence assistance, then the same would be provided to him, however, in the present case, the delinquent did not raise any demand and he, himself, cross-examined the witnesses, no irregularity has been committed by the enquiry officer in not providing the defence assistance to the petitioner. In view of the charges levelled against the petitioner and other officers, it is clear that all other officers involved in the case correlated to each other and putting Government in loss. So far as the requirement of Rule 15 (3) of the Rules of 1966, the respondents have stated that after sending the record of the enquiry advice from Commission obtained and has been taken into account by the disciplinary authority. There is no such requirement that the said advice should also be communicated to the petitioner. 9. Respondent No.4 has also filed reply supporting the stands taken by the official respondents. 10. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply submitted by the respondents and denied all the allegations made in the said reply. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is working as Sub Divisional Officer and while when he was posted at Bansagar Project, Semariya, cantilever sign boards were purchased which allegedly have been permitted by the petitioner to be purchased from the M.P. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh on the rates without comparative assessment of market rates thereby causing a economic loss to the Government. On the basis of the said complaint, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10/01/2012. The petitioner filed reply to the said show cause notice on 14/02/2012 stating that the petitioner has no authority/power to procure any store item and nor he has done so. On the basis of the said complaint, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10/01/2012. The petitioner filed reply to the said show cause notice on 14/02/2012 stating that the petitioner has no authority/power to procure any store item and nor he has done so. The petitioner was only authorized to accept the material which was procured by his superiors and no payment for any sign boards has been made, however, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 09/05/2012 under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 contemplating major penalty proceedings. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application on 22/06/2012 demanding the relevant documents, however, the documents demanded by the petitioner was not furnished. Thus, in absence of the said documents, the petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge sheet on 17/07/2012. Thereafter the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner along with covering letter dated 05/04/2014. The petitioner submitted representation on the said enquiry report on 05/05/2014. The petitioner has also submitted a representation to the P.S.C. Thereafter without considering the representation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have passed an impugned order dated 10/11/2014 thereby reverting the petitioner to the post of Sub Engineer in the lowest pay scale. Against the said order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 12. The respondents, in their reply, have raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing of appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1966. With regard to the said objection, it is apparent that instant is the case wherein the order has been passed by the State Government and the State Government would be taken decision in the appeal. Besides this, the impugned order, in the present case, has been passed by the Principal Secretary with the approval of the Minister Incharge. The appeal has to be considered by the Minister Incharge in terms of the Rules of Business. Part-IV of the said rules deals with the direction issued under Rule 10 of the Business Rules wherein the appeal preferred by the Government servant to the Governor in accordance with the rules against the order of the State Government in disciplinary cases issued after obtaining the approval of the Minister Incharge. Part-IV of the said rules deals with the direction issued under Rule 10 of the Business Rules wherein the appeal preferred by the Government servant to the Governor in accordance with the rules against the order of the State Government in disciplinary cases issued after obtaining the approval of the Minister Incharge. As per the various judgments passed by the Apex Court, alternate remedy is no bar for filing a writ petition. The Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trust Marks, Mumbai and others, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 has laid down the principles where the existence of alternative remedy is not bar to entertain the writ petition. Para-14 and 15 of the said judgment read as under : “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writ in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”. 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case law on this point but to cut down the circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” 13. There is a plethora of case law on this point but to cut down the circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” 13. In the present case, although the respondents have followed the procedure while passing the impugned order of punishment, however, as the mandatory provisions of Rule 15 (3) and Rule 14(18) of the Rules of 1966 are not followed, therefore, the same amounts to violative of principle of natural justice. Similarly in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 338 in para-23, the Apex Court has held as under : “23. As to alternative remedy available to the writ petitioner, a finding has been recorded by the High Court in favour of the writ petitioner and the same has not been challenged by the State before us. Even otherwise, from the record, it is clear that the decision has been taken by the Government. Obviously in such cases, remedy of appeal cannot be termed as “alternative”, or “equally efficacious”. Once a policy decision has been taken by the Government, filing of appeal is virtually from “Caesar to Caesar's Wife”, an “empty formality” or “futile attempt”. The High Court was, therefore, right in overruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents.” Thus, in light of the aforesaid judgments, the existence of alternative remedy is no bar to file writ petition and it is also to be seen that the present writ petition is pending since 2014, therefore, after lapse of a period of three years, it is not proper to relegate the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of filing the appeal. 14. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1966 provides for action on the enquiry report which reads as under : “15. Action on the inquiry report.-(1) the disciplinary authority if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14 as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its finding on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servants, it shall, not withstanding anything contained in Rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty [but in doing so it shall record reasons in writing] : Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government servant. As per the said rule, after getting report from the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, on the basis of findings on all charges, can imposed punishment as given under Rule 10 of the Rules. The proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1966, provides that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the enquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government servant. In the present case, although the advice of the Commission was taken by the respondents, however, the report of the Commission was not supplied to the petitioner before imposing the punishment. If any advice given by the PSC is being used against the petitioner for imposing penalty, then the rule of natural justice requires that the copy of same be supplied to the petitioner. 15. The Apex Court in the case of S.N. Narula Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 591 , in para-6 and 7 reads as under : “6. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the report of the Union Public Service Commission was not communicated to the appellant before the final order was passed. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the report of the Union Public Service Commission was not communicated to the appellant before the final order was passed. Therefore, the appellant was unable to make an effective representation before the disciplinary authority as regards the punishment imposed. 7. We find that the stand taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal was correct and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and direct that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant be finally disposed of in accordance with the direction given by the Tribunal in para-6 of the order. The appellant may submit a representation within two weeks to the disciplinary authority and we make it clear that the matter shall be finally disposed of by the disciplinary authority within a period of three months thereafter.” 16. The judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of S.N. Narula(supra), has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of R.P. Singh (supra). In the case of R.P. Singh (supra) in para 12, 21 and 23 has held as under : “12. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the submission of Mr. W.A. Qadri that the decision in S.N. Narula case is not an authority because the Tribunal has set aside the order of the disciplinary authority on the ground that it was a non-speaking order. Be that as it may, when the issue was raised before this Court and there has been an advertence to the same, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Qadri. The said decision in S.N. Narula case is an authority for the preposition that the advice of UPSC, if sought and accepted, the same, regard being had to the principles of natural justice, is to be communicated before imposition of the punishment. 21. At this juncture, we would like to give our reasons for our respectful concurrence with S.K. Kapoor. There is no cavil over the proposition that the language engrafted in Article 320(3)(c) does not make the said Article mandatory. 21. At this juncture, we would like to give our reasons for our respectful concurrence with S.K. Kapoor. There is no cavil over the proposition that the language engrafted in Article 320(3)(c) does not make the said Article mandatory. As we find, in T.V. Patel's case, the Court has based its finding on the language employed in Rule 32 of the Rules. It is not in dispute that the said Rule from the very inception is a part of the 1965 Rules. With the efflux of time, there has been a change of perception as regards the applicability of the principles of natural justice. An Inquiry Report in a disciplinary proceeding is required to be furnished to the delinquent employee so that he can make an adequate representation explaining his own stand/stance. That is precisely what has been laid down in the B. Karunakar case. …...............................” 23. We have referred to the aforesaid decision in B. Karunakar case in extenso as we find that in the said case it has been opined by the Constitution Bench that non-supply of the enquiry report is a breach of the principle of natural justice. Advice from the UPSC, needless to say, when utilized as a material against the delinquent officer, it should be supplied in advance. As it seems to us, Rule 32 provides for supply of copy of advice to the government servant at the time of making an order. The said stage was in prevalence before the decision of the Constitution Bench. After the said decision, in our considered opinion, the authority should have clarified the Rule regarding development in the service jurisprudence.” Thus, as per this judgment, the non-supply of the enquiry report is a breach of natural justice and advice from UPSC should be supplied in advance and if the same is not done, the enquiry is vitiated on the count of violation of natural justice. 17. Rule 14(18) of the Rules of 1966 has not been followed by the enquiry officer. Rule 14(18) of the Rules of 1966 provides that after the Government servant closes his case, enquiry authority, if the Government servant has not examined himself, then question him on the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. This procedure has not been followed by the respondents in the present case. 18. Rule 14(18) of the Rules of 1966 provides that after the Government servant closes his case, enquiry authority, if the Government servant has not examined himself, then question him on the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. This procedure has not been followed by the respondents in the present case. 18. The Apex Court in the case of S.B. Ramesh (supra) has held that the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the CCA Rules is required to be followed. Para-6 and 15 of the said judgment reads as under : “6. Before the Tribunal, the respondent challenged the order of compulsory retirement by contending that the Enquiry has not been held in conformity with the principles of natural justice, that the findings of the Enquiry Authority, which were acceded by the Disciplinary Authority, were all absolutely perverse and based on no evidence and that sub-rule (18) of rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was not complied with. It also appears that the respondent raised a preliminary point before the Tribunal contending that his conduct, which has no relation to the discharge of official duties, cannot form a basis for departmental proceedings to charge him under rule 3(1)(iii) of the Conduct Rules. This preliminary point was, however, rejected by the Tribunal as without merit in the light of a judgment of this Court in S. Govinda Menon Vs. Union of India.” 15. On a careful perusal of the above findings of the Tribunal in the light of the materials placed before it. we do not think that there is any case for interference, particularly in the absence of full materials made available before us in spite of opportunity given to the appellants. On the facts of this case, we are of the view that the departmental Enquiry conducted in this case is totally unsatisfactory and without observing the minimum required procedure for proving the charge. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in rendering the findings as above and setting aside the order impugned before it.” 19. So far as merit of the case is concerned, the charge against the petitioner is that in the matter of procurement of sign boards items have been purchased by the petitioner from the M.P. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh on the rates without comparative assessment of market rates thereby resulting into economic loss of the Government. So far as merit of the case is concerned, the charge against the petitioner is that in the matter of procurement of sign boards items have been purchased by the petitioner from the M.P. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh on the rates without comparative assessment of market rates thereby resulting into economic loss of the Government. The petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice has stated that the petitioner has no authority/power to procure any store items nor has he done so. The petitioner was only authorised to accept the material which was procured by his superior. The Engineer-in-Chief by his communication dated 04/12/2012 has made it clear that in the event of purchase/procurement of any material, it is the officer who grants permission for such purchase who would alone be held responsible, therefore, no delinquency could has been fastened upon the petitioner under the relevant rules. The petitioner did not have any authority of procuring or granting sanction for purchase of any item and it is only the sanctioning authority who is responsible if it is found that any unnecessary material has been purchased for the project. During enquiry only one departmental witness i.e. Ram Gopal Mishra was examined and the said witness has demolished the very basis of charge made against the petitioner. Thus, on merit also the petitioner cannot be held responsible in the matter. 20. The enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is also non-speaking and is cryptic. Rule 14(23)(i) of the Rules of 1966 reads as under : “14(23)(i). After the conclusion of the inquiry, a report shall be prepared and it shall contain.- (a) the articles of charge and the statement in respect of each articles of charge; (ii) the defence of the Government servant in respect of each articles of charge; (iii) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; and (iv) the finding on each article of charge and the reasons therefor. Explanation.-If in the opinion of the inquiring authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish an article of charge different from the original articles of the charge, it may record its finding on such article of charge: Provided that the finding on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the Government servant has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge.” As per this rule, after conclusion of the enquiry, a report shall be prepared and the said report shall contain article of charges, then defence of the Government servant and the assessment of evidence and the finding of each charge and reasons therefor. 21. The Apex Court in the case of A.L. Kalra Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., reported in (1984) 3 SCC 316 in para-28 has held as under : “28. Mr. Ramamurthi on behalf of the appellant further contended that the order of removal from service is void as it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and at any rate an order imposing penalty by a quasi-judicial tribunal must be supported by reasons in support of its conclusions. It was urged that duty to give reasons would permit the court hearing a petition for a writ of certiorari to ex facie ascertain whether there is any error apparent on the record. It was conceded that for the present submission adequacy or sufficiency of reasons is not questioned. What is contended is that the inquiry officer has merely recorded his ipse dixit and no reasons are assigned in support of the findings. The mental process is conspicuously silent. A speaking order will at its best be reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one (M.P. Industries Ltd. V. Union of India & others). What prevents the authority authorised to impose penalty from giving reasons ? If reasons for an order are given, there will be less scope for arbitrary or partial exercise of power and the orders ex facie will indicate whether extraneous circumstances were taken into consideration by authority passing the order. This view in A. Vedachala Mudaliar Vs. State of Madras was approved by this Court in Bhagat Raja V. Union of India. If reasons for an order are given, there will be less scope for arbitrary or partial exercise of power and the orders ex facie will indicate whether extraneous circumstances were taken into consideration by authority passing the order. This view in A. Vedachala Mudaliar Vs. State of Madras was approved by this Court in Bhagat Raja V. Union of India. As pointed out earlier, the findings of the inquiry officer are merely his ipse dixit. No reasons are assigned for reaching the finding and while recapitulating evidence self-contradictory position were adopted that either there was no misconduct or there was some misconduct or double punishment was already imposed. Rule 27 (19) casts an obligation upon the inquiry officer at the conclusion of the inquiry to prepare a report which must inter alia include the findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor. The report is prepared in contravention of the aforementioned rule.” 22. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer and others, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 378 in para-6 has held as under : “6. Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an order sheet and no correlation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to observe that it is not an enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was no enquiry in this case worth the name and the order of termination based on such proceeding disclosing non-application of mind would be unsustainable.” 23. Thus, in light of the aforesaid rules as well as the judgments passed by the Apex Court, the minimum expectation is that the report submitted by the enquiry officer must be reasoned one. In the present case from perusal of the enquiry report, it is clear that the enquiry officer has failed to record its finding on the charge levelled against the petitioner. There is no marshalling of the evidence. Thus, the entire enquiry conducted against the petitioner is in violation of the principles of the natural justice. 24. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. There is no marshalling of the evidence. Thus, the entire enquiry conducted against the petitioner is in violation of the principles of the natural justice. 24. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 10/11/2014 passed by respondent No.1 and 05/04/2014 passed by respondent No.2 are hereby set aside.