JUDGMENT & ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The sole respondent herein/wit petitioner i.e. Mr. P.C. Nath while posted as Assistant Manager (Plant) at Sarpara Bottling Plant of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) was placed under suspension on 29.12.2004 in contemplation of drawal Disciplinary Proceeding. Charge sheet was issued on 13.01.2005. The Articles of Charges and Statement of Allegations against Mr. Nath related to two incidents. First, on 25.12.2004 when Parthiv Dhar, Assistant Manager (Plant) was engaged in the job of shifting packed L.P.G. trucks from the non-licensed area of the Plant to the licensed area, the charged employee i.e. Mr. Nath had acted in a rude and indecent manner and also abused Parthiv Dhar. Inside the office premises, he caught hold of Dhar’s neck and hit him behind his right ear in the presence of one Manoj Kalita, Typist-Clerk; Dhan Kumar Das and Tapan Das, contract labourers. Subsequent attack on Parthiv Dhar was also made in presence of one H.C. Brahma, Accounts Officer. Second, on 01.01.2005 when Mr. Nath was served with the order of suspension dated 29.12.2004, issued by the General Manager, NESO by one L. Khozol, the then Acting Plant Manger in presence of one P.K. Das, Manager (LPG-Ops), he with an intention of causing grievous hurt had dragged P.K. Das inside the Plant Manager’s chamber alone and after locking the chamber from inside, punched four blows on the neck and shoulder of P.K. Das without any provocation. 2. The charges were held proved as per Enquiry Report dated 04.09.2005. A Show Cause Notice dated 14.10.2005 was issued informing about the proposed penalty of reduction to a lower grade, to which Mr. Nath made reply on 25.10.2005. Eventually, by order dated 03.11.2005 the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of reduction to a lower grade, that is, from the post of Assistant Manager (Plant) in Grade-B to Operation Officer (LPG) in Grade-A. Appeal preferred before the General Manager, i/c (LPG), being the Appellate Authority, stood rejected on 27.02.2007. 3. The penalty of reduction to a lower grade imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, were set aside on challenge made in the related WP(C) 2421/2009. 3. The penalty of reduction to a lower grade imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, were set aside on challenge made in the related WP(C) 2421/2009. By the order of 29.09.2015 of the learned Single Judge, interference was made primarily on two grounds– (i) the findings of the Enquiry Officer suggested biased approach and (ii) the authorities disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by ignoring to consider admissible and material evidence. Aggrieved, IOCL have preferred the present writ appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing the appellants as well as Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel representing the sole respondent herein/writ petitioner. 5. At the very outset, we place on record that the first issue on bias has no bearing or nexus influencing the penalty imposed upon Mr. Nath. Reason being, during the disciplinary proceeding there was neither any discussion or evidence placed by Mr. Nath to demonstrate that Parthiv Dhar (PW-2), one of the alleged victim, was related to the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Report was submitted on 04.09.2005 and the question of bias was taken up by Mr. Nath for the first time in his letter dated 25.10.2005, addressed to the General Manager, North East State Office (NESO) (Annexure-17). In the said letter, mention was made that the respondent/writ petitioner had raised the point of bias on 22.06.2005 at the time of the inquiry proceeding. However, records available do not support the statement raised nor suggests anything in what manner the Enquiry Officer was a close relative of Parthiv Dhar. There is no material to suggest any ‘real danger of bias’ or ‘suspicion of bias’ in the inquiry proceeding for making interference to the penalty on this count. In the course of hearing, both parties are also agreed on this point. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the question of bias is not relevant to the issue at hand. 6. On the second issue as to whether the authorities disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion, it would be essential to examine the facts. This exercise so undertaken is not to be construed as a reappreciation of evidence and/or going into the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence on record. 6. On the second issue as to whether the authorities disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion, it would be essential to examine the facts. This exercise so undertaken is not to be construed as a reappreciation of evidence and/or going into the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence on record. We are aware of the jurisdiction of the High Court in making interference to a fact-finding disciplinary proceeding and to an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, save and except, in cases where there is a predominant violation and brushing aside of relevant evidence, as laid down in the case of Union of India -vs- P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 . Two of the conditions permitting the High Court to look into, which are relevant to the issue at hand, are (i) whether the authorities disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, and (ii) whether the Disciplinary Authority had erroneously failed to admit admissible and material evidence. 7. As regards the first incident, on record, the respondent herein/writ petitioner had addressed a letter dated 25.12.2004 to the Chief LPG Manager, NESO, Guwahati through the Plant Manger of Sarpara B.P. indicating Parthiv Dhar as the aggressor who had hit him by punching on his left chest. The details of the incident of 25.12.2004 was documented in the said letter as well as the fact that he had conveyed the matter to the Plant Manager over mobile phone on the same day at around 1345 hours. This letter of 25.12.2004, being made at the first point of time before the competent authorities, never stood for consideration either in the inquiry proceedings or before the Disciplinary Authority. Out of the four persons named in the Statement of Allegations who had witnessed the incident of 25.12.2004, two such persons i.e. Manoj Kalita and H.C. Brahma were not produced as management witnesses. Tapan Das, one of the contract labourers, however, deposed as the sole Defence witness. In respect of the incident of 01.01.2005, one Miss. E. Shullai was also not produced. All the names above were mentioned in the list of witnesses. In respect of the incident of 25.12.2004, a letter was also addressed to the Chief LPG Manager, NESO by P.K. Das, Manager (LPG-Ops) through letter dated 28.12.2004 that he had visited Sarpara B.P. on 27.12.2004. E. Shullai was also not produced. All the names above were mentioned in the list of witnesses. In respect of the incident of 25.12.2004, a letter was also addressed to the Chief LPG Manager, NESO by P.K. Das, Manager (LPG-Ops) through letter dated 28.12.2004 that he had visited Sarpara B.P. on 27.12.2004. The said letter shows that discussions were made with H.C. Brahma, Accounts Officer and with Manoj Kalita, Typist-Clerk of Sarpara B.P. about the incident of manhandling involving the charged employee and Parthiv Dhar. The said letter also discloses that H.C. Brahma and Manoj Kalita would submit a report on the incident. It is also recorded in the said letter that report was received from Dhan Kumar Das and Tapan Das, working as contract labourers at Sarpara B.P. and who had also witnessed the incident. Records reveal that the charged employee had asked for the Visitor’s Register maintained at the Plant Main Gate and copies of the relevant pages, duly signed by competent authorities, was provided to him. The Visitor’s Register so provided on request is part of the record of the proceedings (page 83 of the Appeal Memo). The said Visitor’s Register do not record that P.K. Das i.e. the victim of the second incident of 01.01.2005 had entered the Bottling Plant on the alleged date of assault. However, the Enquiry Officer while making assessment of evidence discarded this vital piece of evidence by describing the same to be unauthenticated. Pertinently, while disregarding the Visitor’s Register, the Enquiry Officer relied upon a travel payment voucher of P.K. Das to conclude that the said Plant Manager had visited the Bottling Plant on 27.12.2004, the date when he collected statements of some witnesses in respect of the incident of 25.12.2004. The question, therefore, if the Visitor’s Register was disregarded as unauthenticated, the same yardstick ought to have been applied in respect of the computer generated travel payment voucher of P.K. Das. 8. Another vital aspect overlooked by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority was with regard to the evidence of the sole defence witness i.e. Tapan Das. To reproduce from the record of the enquiry proceedings, certain questions tendered and answers received from Tapan Das are as follows: “Q.147 CE to DW1: Please go through exhibit P-3 and tell the Hon’ble EO, is it your written document addressed to Sri Das Sir. To reproduce from the record of the enquiry proceedings, certain questions tendered and answers received from Tapan Das are as follows: “Q.147 CE to DW1: Please go through exhibit P-3 and tell the Hon’ble EO, is it your written document addressed to Sri Das Sir. A. 147 to EO: Yes, it is so. Q.148 CE to DW1: Do you know what is the content of P-3 ? A.148 DW1 to EO: Das Sir locked the room and ask me to write quickly. I do not know what I have written within 2 to 3 minutes. Q.149 CE to DW1: Did you see any quarrel between Sri PC Nath and Sri P. Dhar on 25.12.04 ? A.149 DW1 to EO: Although I was in the plant, I did not see anything as I was at the canteen for having lunch. Q.150 CE to DW1: Who were the person present while you were writing P-3 inside the room which was locked by Sri Das sir. A. 150 DW1 to EO: In addition to myself, Sri Das Sir and Sri Dhan Kr. Das of the canteen was present. Q.151 CE to DW1: Please inform the EO whether the statement made by you in the exhibit P-3 is of your own or you have taken help of somebody. A.151 DW1 to EO: Das Sir (Sri PK Das) prompted me to write the contents of exhibit P-3. In fact I have not at all seen anything. Q.152 CE to DW1: Please tell the Hon’ble EO what do you mean by saying “not seen anything”. A. 152 DW1 to EO: I have not seen a fight taken place. Q.153 CE to DW1: In reply to Q.150, you have mentioned the presence of Sri PK Das and Sri Dhan Kr. Das. Please tell the Hon’ble EO what was the activity of Sri Dhan Kr. Das during that time. A. 153 DW1 to EO: Sri Dhan Kr. Das was writing a statement after referring to my statement as per exhibit P-3. CE to EO: I have no more question for my witness DW1. EO to PO: You may proceed with the cross examination of DW1 if you desire so. Q.154 PO to DW1: Please refer to P-3 and identify your signature on the document. A. 154 DW1 to EO: DW1 identifies his signature on exhibit P-3 before the EO. CE to EO: I have no more question for my witness DW1. EO to PO: You may proceed with the cross examination of DW1 if you desire so. Q.154 PO to DW1: Please refer to P-3 and identify your signature on the document. A. 154 DW1 to EO: DW1 identifies his signature on exhibit P-3 before the EO. Q.155 PO to DW1: Please go through P-3 and confirm to the Hon’ble EO that this report has been written in your own hand writing. A.155 DW1 to EO: Yes, I have myself written with my own hand. Q.156 PO to DW1: Please refer to P-3 and tell the Hon’ble EO what incident you are talking about in your report which occurred on 25.12.04 ? A.156 DW1 to EO: I do not know about any incident. I have simply written what Das sir has told. Q.157 PO to DW1: Do you mean to say that the statement made by you in line no.1 and 2 has not been seen by you. A.157 DW1 to EO: Yes, it is so. Q.158 PO to DW1: Please re-confirm as you replied in A.157. A.158 DW1 to EO: Yes, I re-confirm not having seen anything. Q.159 PO to DW1: Please refer your reply in A.158, do you mean to say that what you have written here is a total lie on your part ? Please confirm so to the Hon’ble EO. A.159 DW1 to EO: Yes Sir, the whole things is a lie, I have written whatever Das has told me. Q.160 PO to DW1: Please re-confirm that the whole thing what you have mentioned in A.159 is a total lie and nothing else. A.160 DW1 to EO: Yes, I re-confirm my previous statement as at A.159. PO to EO: I have no more questions to ask DW1.” 9. In the Assessment of Evidence, the Enquiry Officer made no discussion whatsoever of the evidence of DW1 i.e. Tapan Das. As seen above, DW1 in answer to Q.151 categorically stated that P.K. Das had prompted him to write the contents of P-3 despite the fact that he did not see anything. In his answer to Q.152 he qualified by saying that he did not see any fight that had taken place. As seen above, DW1 in answer to Q.151 categorically stated that P.K. Das had prompted him to write the contents of P-3 despite the fact that he did not see anything. In his answer to Q.152 he qualified by saying that he did not see any fight that had taken place. The evidence of DW1 at least suggested a different perception of the case than what had been readily accepted by the Enquiry Officer from the evidence of others by shutting out the evidence tendered by DW1. The Disciplinary Authority, while imposing punishment on the basis of the Enquiry Report, ignored to consider this vital aspect, which if taken, perhaps would have made a fundamental difference to the conclusion so reached. 10. Apparently, the letter of the respondent herein/writ petitioner dated 25.12.2004 showing Parthiv Dhar as the aggressor never stood for consideration in the enquiry proceedings. It is not the case of appellants herein that the said letter had never been received by the concerned office. The said letter dated 25.12.2004 was made at the first point of time giving a different picture of the incident of 25.12.2004. However, the same was totally ignored from consideration, both in the enquiry proceedings and by the Disciplinary Authority. The basis for drawing up the disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Nath was, however, made on the letter subsequently made by Parthiv Dhar on 27.12.2004. 11. The Visitor’s Register which was made available to Mr. Nath on request during the enquiry proceedings did not record that P.K. Das had entered the Bottling Plant on the alleged date of assault i.e. 01.01.2005. The significance of the Visitor’s Register, as a vital piece of evidence in so far as the second incident of 01.01.2005 was concerned, was rejected by describing the same to be unauthenticated. On the other hand, the Enquiry Officer duly accepted a Travel Payment Voucher to arrive at a finding that P.K. Das had visited the Bottling Plant on 27.12.2004 in connection with the first incident of 25.12.2004. If the Visitor’s Register maintained at the Plant Main Gate could be discarded as unauthenticated and not a reliable piece of evidence, the same yardstick ought to have been applied in respect of the computer generated Travel Payment Voucher. There is a significant shift in the objective assessment of evidence while reaching the conclusion that the charges leveled against Mr. Nath stood established. 12. There is a significant shift in the objective assessment of evidence while reaching the conclusion that the charges leveled against Mr. Nath stood established. 12. As alluded to above, the evidence of DW1 which was a relevant piece of evidence, was not taken into consideration and was totally excluded while reaching a conclusion detrimental to the interest of Mr. Nath. In all, the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the entire evidence in its proper perspective to arrive at the right conclusion. This is a fit case where the appellant authorities disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion and had erroneously failed to admit admissible and material evidence. Evidently, the said lacunae influenced the finding against Mr. Nath. 13. In view of the above, we are in complete agreement with the finding and decision of the learned Single Judge, save and except, the finding on the element of bias. The order of punishment of reduction to a lower grade dated 03.11.2005 as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dated 27.02.2007 had been correctly interfered and quashed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal, therefore, being without merit, save and except, our finding on the point of bias, stands accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.