JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.11.2014 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Circuit Bench sitting at Nainital) in Original Application No. 1499 of 2012, “Pankaj Kumar Aitwal Vs. Union of India and others”, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows : Petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the office of Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh on 05.01.1996 under the sports quota. On 01.01.2001, he was promoted as an Auditor. Thereafter, on 01.01.2004, he was again promoted to the post of Senior Auditor. In the year 2002, services of the petitioner were transferred from Allahabad to Dehradun. The primary duty of the Accountant General Organization is to audit the accounts of Government Departments and Agencies. For this purpose, Senior Accounts Officer, Senior Auditor, Audit Officer, Assistant Audit Officer etc. are appointed. These officers are required to visit the State Government Offices at regular interval for auditing their accounts. Unauthorized audit of six offices of Divisional Forest Officers in Uttarakhand allegedly by the Officers/Officials of the Offices of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Uttarakhand was reported on 23.02.2010, when audit programme for the ‘Performance Audit” of Forest and Wildlife Management was being finalized. Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Senior Audit Officer, one of the charged officials, on 05.03.2010 admitted the involvement of the petitioner alongwith other officials in the unauthorized audit. Matter was further inquired and involvement of the petitioner was found in the illegal and unauthorized audit of two offices of the Divisional Forest Officer, Landsdowne, Kotdwar and the Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai West, Ramnagar during 25.06.2009 to 02.07.2009 and 04.07.2009 to 07.07.2009 respectively. On 05.03.2010, the petitioner was placed under suspension. 3. On 02.08.2010, charge sheet was served on the petitioner with the following charges : “Article I-That Shri Pankaj Kumar Aitwal, Sr. Auditor while working in the office of Accountant General (Audit), Uttarakhand, conducted unauthorized audit of offices of the Divisional Forest Officer, Lansdowne-Forest Division Kotdwar, Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai West, Ramnagar, during 25.06.2009 to 02.07.2009 and 04.07.2009 to 07.07.2009 respectively, alongwith Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Sr. Audit Officer. Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Sr. Audit Officer, in a written statement on 05.03.2010 admitted the involvement of Shri Pankaj Kumar Aitwal, Sr. Auditor in the unauthorized audit. Audit Officer. Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Sr. Audit Officer, in a written statement on 05.03.2010 admitted the involvement of Shri Pankaj Kumar Aitwal, Sr. Auditor in the unauthorized audit. Officers and Staff of respective Forest Divisions had also confirmed the presence for Shri Pankaj Kumar Aitwal, Sr. Auditor in the audit. This was held to be violation of the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i)(ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II-That Shri Pankaj Kumar Aitwal, Sr. Auditor, Office of Accountant General (Audit), Uttarakhand during his posting in SRG section, conducted unauthorized audit of offices of the Divisional Forest Officer Lansdowne, Kotdwar and Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai West-Ramnagar, during 25.06.2009 to 02.07.2009 and 04.07.2009 to 07.07.2009. During the same period he also signed the attendance register in the office. This was held to be violation of the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (ii) (ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 4. Mr. S.S. Palyal was appointed as Presenting Officer by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner submitted his written statement, in which he refuted the allegations levelled against him in the charge sheet and pleaded not guilty. The Inquiry Officer, after concluding the inquiry proceedings, submitted Inquiry Report on 01.07.2011 to the Disciplinary Authority. In his Inquiry Report, the Inquiry Officer found all the charges proved against the petitioner and found that petitioner had violated Rule 3(i) (ii) and (iii) of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. A copy of Inquiry Report was provided to the petitioner. He was given an opportunity to give reply. He submitted his reply on 01.09.2011. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the entire record, imposed penalty of DISMISSAL from service on 23.12.2011. It was also ordered that dismissal from service shall disqualify him from any future employment under the Government. However, following further order was also passed by the Disciplinary Authority : “10. The undersigned is aware that Shri Pankaj Kumar Aitwal, Senior Auditor has a dependent father, wife and daughter, who should not suffer for no fault on their part. Thus, on humanitarian grounds, the undersigned grants compassionate allowance of two thirds of pension which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension in accordance with Rule 41 (1) of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972. Further, since he has a daughter aged 6 years, the undersigned grants two thirds of gratuity admissible to him as per the above rule.” 5. Further, since he has a daughter aged 6 years, the undersigned grants two thirds of gratuity admissible to him as per the above rule.” 5. Against the said order, petitioner filed an Appeal before the respondent no. 2. On 04.07.2012, the Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed Original Application No. 1499 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. On 19.11.2014, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, Circuit Bench sitting at Nainital, dismissed the Original Application. Hence, the petitioner is before us. 6. We heard Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai & Mr. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the Inquiry officer was not able to discharge his duties in a free and impartial manner. Inquiry Officer is required to act like a judge, free from bias or prejudice, however, Mr. Susheel Thakur, Deputy Accountant General, could not maintain his objectivity as required from an Inquiry Officer. Not only the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself; but, list of documents and witnesses, by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained, was not supplied to him in disregard of Rule 14 (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The method of identification adopted by the Inquiry Officer was also not proper, as petitioner alone was produced before the witnesses for identification and the identity of the petitioner was disclosed to the witnesses before identification. The inquiry was held against the petitioner in a slipshod manner, in which principles of natural justice were given complete go bye. Further, at times, petitioner felt that the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer had conspired to anyhow hold the petitioner guilty of the charges and keeping this thing in mind, they had taken all steps so that petitioner may not prove his innocence. The Inquiry Report submitted by Mr. Susheel Thakur is based on no evidence and, therefore, is perverse. Petitioner’s presence in the office at Dehradun was proved from the attendance register. This was ignored by the Inquiry Officer and burden of proving that petitioner was not present at Ramnagar and Kotdwar was shifted to the petitioner. The Inquiry Report submitted by Mr. Susheel Thakur is based on no evidence and, therefore, is perverse. Petitioner’s presence in the office at Dehradun was proved from the attendance register. This was ignored by the Inquiry Officer and burden of proving that petitioner was not present at Ramnagar and Kotdwar was shifted to the petitioner. Further case of the petitioner is that, in a Disciplinary Inquiry also, it is the duty of the department to bring home the charge against an employee and burden of proof cannot be shifted to the chargesheeted employee. In absence of any concrete evidence regarding petitioner’s presence at Ramnagar and Kotdwar, the burden of proof cannot be shifted. The witnesses were not sure about the petitioner’s presence at Ramnagar and Kotdwar and they were not able to give definite opinion regarding petitioner’s presence, which goes to the very root of the matter. In the absence of any documentary evidence in support of the first charge that petitioner was member of the team, which unauthorizedly audited records of the forest department at Ramnagar and Kotdwar, ocular evidence becomes very important. In the present case, none of the witnesses could identify the petitioner with certainty, which makes petitioner’s presence at Ramnagar and Kotdwar, doubtful. On the other hand, there is documentary evidence regarding petitioner’s presence at Dehradun. This aspect has been completely overlooked by the Inquiry Officer, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The finding of Inquiry Officer regarding both the charges is erroneous and unsustainable. According to the petitioner, finding on the first charge has been recorded by shifting the burden of proof to the petitioner. Finding on second charge is also erroneous, as it is based on the premise that petitioner’s participation in the unauthorized audit is proved by the independent witnesses. The Inquiry Officer again shifted burden of proof to the petitioner by observing that he has not been able to produce any evidence that he was present in the office at Dehradun during that period. It is submitted that there is an inherent contradiction in the charge levelled against the petitioner, inasmuch as, it is alleged that, during the period, petitioner was away from Dehradun and had visited Ramnagar and Kotdwar, but he was shown as present in the attendance register maintained at Dehradun. This statement in the chargesheet belies the allegation that petitioner was out of station during the said period. This statement in the chargesheet belies the allegation that petitioner was out of station during the said period. No enquiry was held by the department to ascertain whether entry made in the attendance register regarding petitioner’s presence is correct or not. Moreover, the Officer responsible for maintaining the attendance register was not subjected to inquiry, which indicates that the second charge was dropped. In fact, no witness was examined to bring home the second charge against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no evidence that petitioner visited Kotdwar and Ramnagar between 25.06.2009 to 02.07.2009 and 04.07.2009 to 07.07.2009. Whenever a member of the Audit Team visits any place outside the headquarters, then he stays in an accommodation provided by the Auditee Department. At Ramnagar and Kotdwar, Forest Rest House are available, however, there is no entry or evidence regarding petitioner’s stay between 25.06.2009 to 02.07.2009 and 04.07.2009 to 07.07.2009. It is argued that there is no other evidence regarding petitioner’s visit to these places during said period. On the other hand, petitioner’s attendance marked in the register maintained in the office of respondent no. 3 at Dehradun is a strong evidence that petitioner had served at Dehradun during this period. Thus, the burden of proof was upon the department. However, the department has not been able to discharge its burden of proving that the petitioner had, in fact, visited Ramnagar and Kotdwar during the said period. None of the witnesses could fully recognize or identify the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Patro, D.F.O., Tarai West Forest Division, Ramnagar also stated that he is not certain whether petitioner was member of the Audit Team, which unauthorizedly audited his office. The Administrative Officer in the office of D.F.O., Lansdowne was examined as witness. When asked as to whether Mr. Majhera has been able to recognize petitioner or not, Mr. Majhera could not express any definite opinion. The Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner with total non-application of mind to the facts pleaded in the original application. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the perversity in the report of the Inquiry Officer and overlooked the most relevant aspect i.e. shifting of burden of proof from the department to the petitioner in the Inquiry Report. 8. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the perversity in the report of the Inquiry Officer and overlooked the most relevant aspect i.e. shifting of burden of proof from the department to the petitioner in the Inquiry Report. 8. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that illegal and unauthorised audit of six offices of the Forest Department, Uttarakhand allegedly by the officers/officials of the Accountant General (Audit), Uttarakhand and Accountant General (A & E) Uttarakhand, Dehradun was first reported on 23.02.2010. Enquiries revealed the involvement of the petitioner in the illegal audit, which took place between June, 2009 and December, 2009. The involvement of the petitioner in the unauthorized audit was based, inter alia, on written statement dated 27.02.2010 & 05.03.2010 of Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma (one of the alleged official). He admitted his & petitioner’s involvement in the unauthorized audit. After preliminary investigation, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Audit Officer and Mr. Shyama Kant Sharma, Clerk in the office the Accountant General (A & E) Uttarakhand, Dehradun were placed under suspension with effect from 02.03.2010. Subsequently, Mr. A.K. Sharma named two officials, namely, Mr. Pramendra Singh, Senior Auditor and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Aitwal, Senior Auditor (petitioner herein), as his accomplices in the unauthorized audit. The petitioner and Mr. Pramendra Singh were also placed under suspension on 05.03.2010. Thereafter, the C.B.I. also registered a case on 29.04.2010 against the petitioner and others, under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act, on charges, of criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct by public servant. After investigation, the C.B.I. filed charge sheet dated 17.09.2011 under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. read with Section 7 & 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Anti-corruption, Dehradun. Investigation was conducted and, thereafter, charge sheet was filed on the basis of Investigation Report. The Headquarters, vide its letter No. 870-GE-II/92-2010 dated 25 May, 2010, suggested that, as the alleged officials are of different ranks and the Disciplinary Authorities also being different, a common proceeding may be held. Accordingly, both the Disciplinary Authorities held a meeting on 02.06.2010 and decided to proceed the case of the above three suspended officers/officials under common proceeding. Order of common proceeding was issued to the suspended three officers/officials alongwith the charge-sheet on 02.08.2010. Accordingly, both the Disciplinary Authorities held a meeting on 02.06.2010 and decided to proceed the case of the above three suspended officers/officials under common proceeding. Order of common proceeding was issued to the suspended three officers/officials alongwith the charge-sheet on 02.08.2010. On receiving the replies to the charge sheets, the Disciplinary Authority decided to inquire into the charges and, accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority, on 01.09.2010, appointed Mr. S.K. Thakur, the then Director, Branch, PDCA, MAB-II Mumbai at Dehradun, as an Inquiry Officer (I.O.) and Mr. S.S. Palyal, Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A & E) Uttarakhand, Dehradun as the Presenting Officer (P.O.). After perusing all the documents of inquiry proceedings and the reply of the charged official on the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service on 23.12.2011. 9. It is further case of the respondents that the audit of an entity is conducted only after a duly approved tour programme pertaining to the auditing officials by the competent authority. The petitioner did not raise any objection during inquiry proceedings. Even after conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer gave him another chance to say anything, which he could not say during the inquiry; but, he did not avail that opportunity. The disciplinary proceedings were based on investigation and documentary evidences on record. The chargesheet issued on 02.08.2010 was based, inter alia, on letters dated 27.02.2010 and 05.03.2010 of Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma (one of the charged officials); investigation report submitted by the investigation teams; the concerned attendance register of the year 2009 and the investigation report submitted by the investigation team constituted by the then Accountant General on 13.05.2010. Besides, the statements of some officials of the various forest divisions’ concerned, called, as witness, had also formed the basis for issuing the charge sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner was charged on the basis of investigation report submitted by the investigation team constituted by the Accountant General on 13.05.2010. Further, as regards to the issue of attendance during the period under question, this fact has already been taken into account during the inquiry proceedings by the Inquiry Officer and by the disciplinary authority while passing the final speaking order and also by the Appellate Authority. There is no procedural lapse or violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, as regards to the issue of attendance during the period under question, this fact has already been taken into account during the inquiry proceedings by the Inquiry Officer and by the disciplinary authority while passing the final speaking order and also by the Appellate Authority. There is no procedural lapse or violation of the principles of natural justice. If the petitioner thought that the statements of the witnesses were based on surmises and conjectures, petitioner was free to cross-examine the witnesses and the Inquiry Officer had given him the opportunity to cross-examine; but, the petitioner did not cross-examine the prosecution witness, even when the petitioner was given another opportunity by the Inquiry Officer after conclusion of the enquiry. During the course of inquiry, testimony of the officials from the forest divisions, who were called as independent witnesses, also confirmed the presence of the petitioner in the unauthorized audit. Mere signing the attendance register and other records, does not establish that the petitioner was not in the unauthorized audit party. Further, during the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner could not produce corroborative evidence in support of his claim that he was not present in the forest divisions during the unauthorized audit, despite the fact that the Inquiry Officer gave him ample opportunity to produce witnesses or evidences. Therefore, there is no violation of natural justice. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case after following due process of law, at each stage. He appeared before the Inquiry Officer and gave a copy of the relevant orders to the Inquiry Officer. 10. The case of the petitioner is that principle of natural justice was violated, as he was denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself. Even list of documents & witnesses was not supplied to him. We find this submission not correct, in view of the clear cut finding of the Disciplinary Authority in this regard. The Disciplinary Authority dealt these things in following manner : “6.1. The CO feels that the time of 10 days given to him to reply to the charge-sheet was too little. This appears to be an afterthought. The CO never sought extension for replying to the charge-sheet. He never raised this issue before the Disciplinary Authority, Inquiring Authority and the Presenting Officer during the course of inquiry despite having ample opportunity to do so. 6.2. This appears to be an afterthought. The CO never sought extension for replying to the charge-sheet. He never raised this issue before the Disciplinary Authority, Inquiring Authority and the Presenting Officer during the course of inquiry despite having ample opportunity to do so. 6.2. The CO has stated that there is a factual error in the report of the Inquiry Authority. As per the report, CO corssexamined a witness on hearing dated 4.4.2011 whereas as per the daily order sheet of that hearing, CO did not cross-examine the said witness. The issue has since been clarified by the Inquiry Authority who has confirmed that opportunity of cross-examination was given to the CO which was declined by him. The Inquiring Authority has amended his report to that effect. Further, I am of the opinion that this error is not material to the outcome of the case. 6.3 The CO, in his representation, has stated that list of documents by which the charges were proposed to be sustained was not attached with the charge sheet. The statement is factually incorrect. List of documents was attached as Annexure-III to the charge-sheet which was served to him vide Office Memo No. 609/ Admn/ Audit/ Vigilance dated 02.08.2010. Further, in his reply dated 11.08.2010 to the above memo, the CO has made reference to the documents listed in the said annexure which proves that he had all the documents with him at the time of furnishing his reply on the charge-sheet. 6.4. The CO, in his representation, has challenged the procedure adopted during the inquiry and the impartiality of the Inquiring Authority. For example, many witnesses that he thought should have been called (like Shri A.K. Sharma) were not called. According to him, some documents like rough notes, stay place certificate, attendance register etc. were not made available to him during inquiry. He has produced some documents in support of his claim AFTER the Inquiring Authority submitted his final report. He asserts that he was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses and members of the investigating team. He alleges that the Presenting Officer misused his position and tampered with facts. Careful examination of the daily order sheets reveals that the above contentions of the CO are baseless and appear to be more of an afterthought. He asserts that he was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses and members of the investigating team. He alleges that the Presenting Officer misused his position and tampered with facts. Careful examination of the daily order sheets reveals that the above contentions of the CO are baseless and appear to be more of an afterthought. During the first hearing in particular and in all subsequent hearings, the CO was asked to requisition any witnesses whom he thought were relevant for his defense. He did not call any witnesses. He was given opportunity to cross-examine every witness presented by the Presenting Officer. At the end of every hearing, the daily order sheet was read out to him and he signed all the daily order sheets. The onus of defending himself rested on him and he was given full opportunity to offer evidence, documents or arguments on any issue including the procedure adopted by the Inquiring Authority. At the conclusion of the inquiry he was given another opportunity to do so but he did not raise any issue at that time. Further, he never approached the Inquiring Authority or the Disciplinary Authority on this issue DURING the course of inquiry. The CO had every right to represent to the disciplinary authority for change of IO or PO in case he did not have any faith in them. But, he never exercised this right at any time during the course of inquiry proceedings.” 11. Another argument of the petitioner is that the finding of the Inquiry Officer regarding petitioner’s presence at Kotdwar during 25.06.2009 to 02.07.2009 and at Ramnagar from 04.07.2009 to 07.07.2009 and conducting unauthorized audit of the office of Divisional Forest Officer at these places is incorrect and erroneous. We have carefully considered the submission of both the parties in this regard and also gone through the papers annexed in the paperbook. Petitioner has a case that, during that period, he was present in his office at Dehadun and had signed the attendance register. He had also signed other papers in the office. Regarding his presence at Kotdwar and Ramnagar, the petitioner has a case that none of the witnesses had said, in definite term, that petitioner was present at both the places at the time of unauthorized audit. 12. We find that witness no. He had also signed other papers in the office. Regarding his presence at Kotdwar and Ramnagar, the petitioner has a case that none of the witnesses had said, in definite term, that petitioner was present at both the places at the time of unauthorized audit. 12. We find that witness no. 1, namely, Sohan Singh Rawat, in his statement, has stated that long time has passed and it is not possible to recognize the members of the audit team. He further stated that it is not possible to recognize the petitioner. Exactly similar was the statement of P.W. 2 Ramesh Chandra Arya. Third witness (P.W. 3) Krishna Kumar Majeda, in his statement, stated that petitioner is looking like the same ¼yxHkx ogh yx jgs gSa½ . Forth witness (P.W. 4) also stated that petitioner is looking like the same; but, he is not hundred percent sure. ¼;s oSls gh yx jgs gSa] ijUrq esa 'kr~ izfr’kr~ fuf’pr ugha gw¡A½ . By reading the statement of all the four witnesses, we are of the view that presence of the petitioner at Kotdwar and Ramnagar was not proved. These witnesses were not able to give definite opinion about petitioner’s presence at these places on the days of unauthorized audit. We also find that petitioner relied on certain documents regarding his presence during the said period at Dehradun. He produced some documents including Diaries alongwith his reply to the report of Inquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority, in his order, dealt the issue by simply observing that these documents bear the signatures of the petitioner does not conclusively prove that the petitioner was not present in the unauthorized audits. Before appellate authority also, the petitioner took up the plea that he not only signed the attendance register during the periods under question but also made entries in urgent diary, regular diary, CAG diary, dispatch register, AIR register and also signed these documents. He also took the plea before the appellate authority that Shri S.S. Daryal, Shri Naveen Chandra Shankhdhar, Shri Manoj Kumar, Shri K.L. Bhatt, Shri Amarnath Sahu, Shri Himanshu Mani, Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta etc. had also signed in these registers. These officials/ officers were not called as witnesses by the investigation team and the Disciplinary Authority. He also took the plea before the appellate authority that Shri S.S. Daryal, Shri Naveen Chandra Shankhdhar, Shri Manoj Kumar, Shri K.L. Bhatt, Shri Amarnath Sahu, Shri Himanshu Mani, Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta etc. had also signed in these registers. These officials/ officers were not called as witnesses by the investigation team and the Disciplinary Authority. The appellate authority simply observed in its order that, during the course of inquiry, testimony of the officials from the forest divisions, who were called as witnesses, also confirmed the presence of the appellant in the unauthorized audits. Hence, signature of the appellant in the attendance registers and other records does not establish that the appellant was not in the unauthorized party. There is nothing on record to prove that, during the period in question, the petitioner was not present in his office at Dehradun and signed the registers/ diaries later on. Officials responsible for maintaining the attendance register, dispatch register, AIR register and diaries were not subjected to inquiry. Department could have examined other witnesses proving the fact that the petitioner was not present in his office during the alleged unauthorized audit signed the registers and diaries later. This was not done. 13. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer, regarding petitioner’s presence at Kotdwar and Ramnagar on the days of unauthorized audit, is not based on any acceptable material. 14. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Judgment dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal; Circuit Bench sitting at Nainital is quashed. Punishment order dated 23.12.2011 passed by respondent no. 3 and the appellate order dated 04.07.2012 passed by respondent no. 2 are also quashed. 15. No order as to costs.