JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel and Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. K. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents of withholding the final decision after the inquiry carried on in terms of the memorandum No. C.II(10)A/1/CIU-VIG/SH/2013/91, dated 24.01.2013 (Annexure B to the writ petition). Further, the petitioner has urged this court to direct the principal respondents to make payment of the arrears of the unpaid part of the pension w.e.f. January, 2017 with interest till the payment is made. 3. It appears that by the said memorandum dated 24.01.2013 (Annexure B to the writ petition) that the petitioner was imputed with the following misconducts which are mentioned in the articles of Charge: “Article-I That Shri Samir Kumar Mazumdar while functioning as Inspector during the period from 26.08.2010 to 20.02.2012 at Khowaighat LCS under Agartala Customs Division, was also the Officer-in-Charge of the LCS and look after the day to day work as the LCS. He did not attend office regularly but only on the day of importation. He did not maintain any XT-I diary or attendance register at the LCS. Shri Samir Kumar Mazumdar, Inspector is charged with dereliction of duty. Article-II During his tenure as Officer-in-Charge of the Khowaighat LCS, Shri Samir Kumar Mazumdar, Inspector is charged with failure to examine/check Passenger’s baggage entering/leaving the country. Article-III During his tenure as Officer-in-Charge of the Khowaighat LCS, Shri Samir Kumar Mazumder, Inspector cum Officer-in-Charge of the LCS received and processed the imported consignments from Balla LCS in Bangladesh. All the documents were kept under lock and key under his charge. Shri Samir Kumar Mazumdar, Inspector is charged with causing favour to the importers in as much as he circumvented the tampering and falsification of records by way of obliterating/suppressing by white correction fluid the serial number of Bangladesh Bills of Export and replaced the same by generating and super-scribing another number and making entry on the “Duty Realisation Portion” through the service of his accomplice subordinate officer/sepoy. He attempted to evade detection by not sending the covering Bill of Entries from Khowaighat LCS to Hqrs. Customs Valuation Branch, Shillong for necessary verification. He attempted to evade detection by not sending the covering Bill of Entries from Khowaighat LCS to Hqrs. Customs Valuation Branch, Shillong for necessary verification. He misused his official position and power for personal gain to the detriment of government revenue in as much as he never issue any TR-5 challans to the importers against duty collected on the day of importation and returned the some of the tampered Bills of Entry to the importers in collusion. Shri Samir Kumar Mazumder, Inspector is charged with embezzlement and misappropriation of government money. Article-IV During his tenure as Officer-in-Charge of the Khowaighat LCS, Shri Samir Kumar Mazumder, Inspector failed to maintain proper office record as per prescribed rules and procedures in as much as he caused favour to the importers who submitted Advance TT of 200 MT of Cement but imported only 100 MT under cover of documents. Shri Samir Kumar Mazumdar, Inspector failed to provide documentary evidence that the remaining 100 MT of Cement had been imported either through Khowaighat LCS or through other LCS thereby causing pecuniary loss to the government. Article-V During his tenure as Inspector at the Khowaighat LCS, Shri Samir Kumar Mazumdar, Inspector along with the Sepoy of the LCS manipulated and indulged in having forged/fabricated Bill of Entries with fake numbers and signature to the importer. Such spurious Bills of Entry were not accounted for in the official records maintained at Khowaighat LCS. The Sepoy in his statement accepted his abetment that the act was done at the LCS. Shri Samir Kumar Mazumdar, Inspector who was also present, had full knowledge in the misconduct to defraud government revenue.” 4. It appears that since the petitioner denied the charges wholly, the matter was referred to the inquiry officer for conducting a substantive inquiry. The inquiry officer after assessment of the evidence as recorded in the inquiry submitted his finding on 19.09.2014 clearly holding that no evidence was available against the petitioner. The said proceeding was drawn when the petitioner was acting as the officer-in-charge, Khowai Land Custom station/CP. The inquiry officer has observed as under: “There is no documentary evidence produced as regard involvement of Sri S.K. Mazumdar, Inspector (Retd.). The charge against the C.O. is thus not proved” Further, it has been observed as under: “12. The said proceeding was drawn when the petitioner was acting as the officer-in-charge, Khowai Land Custom station/CP. The inquiry officer has observed as under: “There is no documentary evidence produced as regard involvement of Sri S.K. Mazumdar, Inspector (Retd.). The charge against the C.O. is thus not proved” Further, it has been observed as under: “12. Charges on manipulation of import related records and indulging/fabricated Bill of Entry to the importers misusing official position and power for personal gain to the detriment of Govt. revenue has been covered in article of charge No. 10 & 11. As regard charges on failure to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and actions in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant also not in not issuing TR 5 to the importers against duty collected on the day of importation, not examining passenger baggage and not attending office regularly or maintaining XT-I diary, the position has been summarized in a general way. First of all there is LCS and Customs Prev Post in Khowai. In the transfer posting of the C.O. it is mentioned as Khowaighat LCS/CPP. (Khowai LCS is spelt in short). There are other preventive activities in the station barring Land Custom Station work. The officers had to attend works of CPP for seizure or receiving BSF seizure cases and disposal through auctions and depositing the sale proceeds. Station diary is being maintained in lieu of XT-I diary. The counterfoil of TR 5 book, offence register and BSF seizure report etc. are in record of Khowai LCS which can justify regular attendance and evidence in favour of the C.O. The charge against the C.O. is thus not proved. 13. Four nos. of forged Bill of Entry supplied by the importer were not signed or written by the C.O. All those four bills of Entry are in the name of importer Sri Sanjit Ranjan Paul who signed on the body of the Bill of Entry. Seal is as “Officer-in-Charge” Khowai LCS/CPP. The seal is different that of regular seal. The signature is different from Sri S.K. Mazumdar and not identifiable. Sri Sanjit Ranjan Paul has not stated in his statement that the said four Nos. of forged Bills of Entry were handed over by Sri S.K. Mazumdar and bearing his signature. Thus for lack of evidence the charge against the C.O. has not been proved. ” 5. The signature is different from Sri S.K. Mazumdar and not identifiable. Sri Sanjit Ranjan Paul has not stated in his statement that the said four Nos. of forged Bills of Entry were handed over by Sri S.K. Mazumdar and bearing his signature. Thus for lack of evidence the charge against the C.O. has not been proved. ” 5. The petitioner was supplied with a copy of the said inquiry report by a covering letter under no. C.II(10)A/1/CIU-VIG/SH/2013/22, dated 09.01.2014. The petitioner had submitted his representation on 16.01.2017 (Annexure E to this writ petition) and explained some casual observations made in the report, but since then no final order has been passed, even though the representation was submitted on 29.08.2013. The petitioner had served a demand notice to pass the final order and release the payment of the arrears as entitled to him within a period of 10 days. By the said demand notice dated 27.01.2017, the petitioner had further asked that till such decision is taken his provisional pension be released in terms of the 7th Pay Commission Report as introduced by the office memorandum dated 30.11.2016 and 04.08.2016. Even thereafter no positive action was taken by the respondents. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 6. The respondents have submitted that the Director General of Vigilance has by the communication dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure 17 to the reply filed by the respondents no. 2,3 and 4) has observed as under: “In this regard, D.G.(Vig)/CVO,CBEC has examined the matter and has advised imposition of major penalty on Sh. Moloy kumar Paul, Sepoy and Shri Samir Kumar Majumdar, Inspector (Retd.) and communication of government displeasure to Shri N.C. Malakar, Supdt. (Retd.)” 7. Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has seriously criticized the said decision available in the communication dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure 17 to the reply filed by the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4) inasmuch as such observation has been made without discussing any evidence or assigning any reason for difference. There is no basis for such finding. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has referred to the communication made by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise on 16.09.2014 (Annexure 16 to the reply filed by the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4). Mr. There is no basis for such finding. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has referred to the communication made by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise on 16.09.2014 (Annexure 16 to the reply filed by the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4). Mr. Datta, learned counsel has referred the following paragraph from the said communication: “On careful consideration of the Inquiry Report and available documents, the undersigned, being the Disciplinary Authority, agrees with the Inquiry Officer on the ground that there is evidence to sustain the charges framed against Shri Moloy Paul, Sepoy and attracts imposition of major penalty. In respect of Shri N.C. Malakar, Superintendent, it agreed with the IO that some of the charge can sustained and, therefore, warrants imposition of minor penalty. In respect of Shri Samir K. Mazumdar, Inspector (retd), it is agreed with the Inquiry Officer that there is insufficient evidence against him.” Mr. Datta, learned counsel has reiterated that it has been clearly observed by the Commissioner, the disciplinary authority that there is insufficient evidence against the petitioner. Thus, he has not dissented from the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has thus projected a question before this court being how this decision embodied into communication dated 15.12.2016 can be maintained. 8. From the other side, Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2,3 and 4 has submitted that consultation with the Director General of Vigilance in the disciplinary matters is a mandatory process which has to be observed by the Disciplinary Authority and as such the Disciplinary Authority is governed by the decision that is given by the Director General of Vigilance, Central Board of Excise and Customs. Therefore, the decision under communication dated 15.12.2016 is a material decision for drawing the disciplinary proceeding to its final or logical end. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has fairly submitted that a time frame may be provided by this court within which the Disciplinary Authority shall take its own decision having regard to all the relevant matters surfaced in the proceeding. 9. To this suggestion, Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when a decision is not supported by any reason, such decision is absolutely arbitrary and that cannot be considered by the disciplinary authority. For difference, the opinion must be supported by reasons. 9. To this suggestion, Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when a decision is not supported by any reason, such decision is absolutely arbitrary and that cannot be considered by the disciplinary authority. For difference, the opinion must be supported by reasons. Unless that, that itself would stand contrary to the principles of natural justice. No one can be condemned without communicating the reasons why he has been so condemned. 10. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that the decision as contained in the communication dated 15.12.2016 is grossly arbitrary, irrational and an outcome of colorable exercise of power and as such, the decision in respect of the petitioner stands set aside and quashed. The Disciplinary Authority shall take the final decision afresh on the basis of the inquiry report. His opinion as expressed in the communication dated 16.09.2014 demonstrates clearly that he has agreed with the finding of the inquiry officer. There is manifest lack of sufficient evidence against the petitioner. Within this premise, the Disciplinary Authority shall consider his final order within a period of 30(thirty) days from the day when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order. Thereafter, all the arrears entitled to the petitioner shall be released within a period of 2(two) months. It is made clear that the Disciplinary Authority is prohibited from considering any other materials as indicated by this court. 11. Having observed thus, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to cost. 12. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4.