JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (for brevity, the Corporation). 2 The petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager at Buxar in the Godown of the respondent-Corporation. A charge memo dated 20.03.2006 was served upon him wherein there were six charges. The crux of the allegation proposed to be enquired into was that the petitioner had misappropriated food grains valued at Rs 41,76,942.11 P from the Buxar Rice Mill Godown. In respect of such charges, the petitioner was proceeded against. 3 It is the specific case of the petitioner that no Presenting Officer had been appointed in the proceedings which were conducted against the petitioner. His specific case is that in fact the Enquiry Officer had assumed the role of the Presenting Officer and, as such, the petitioner has been prejudiced by the procedure adopted in the proceedings. The proceedings are, therefore, violative of principles of natural justice and fair play. During the proceedings, the petitioner was also served with a supplementary charge memo dated 04.01.2007 alleging his absence for a particular period. 4 Apart from the said procedural infirmities in the proceedings, the petitioner has specifically asserted, with reference to the enquiry report, that before the Enquiry Officer, written evidence of Sudhir Kumar, the then District Manager and one Assistant Accounts Officer was submitted in the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer. After submitting their written statement, the said two witnesses never appeared before the Enquiry Officer to support the allegations. Even copy of the written evidence submitted by the two witnesses was not made available to the petitioner. However, the Enquiry Officer has relied on the written evidence submitted by the two witnesses. In view of such procedure being adopted by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has not been afforded the opportunity to meet the case of the Corporation as supported by the said two witnesses as their written statements have never been served on the petitioner. He has submitted that he was also deprived of his opportunity to cross-examine these two witnesses as they had not appeared in the proceedings. 5 The Enquiry Officer, however, has proceeded in the matter and submitted his report dated 14.05.2008. Perusal of enquiry report reveals the fact that the said two witnesses have given their written evidence in the proceedings. He has submitted that he was also deprived of his opportunity to cross-examine these two witnesses as they had not appeared in the proceedings. 5 The Enquiry Officer, however, has proceeded in the matter and submitted his report dated 14.05.2008. Perusal of enquiry report reveals the fact that the said two witnesses have given their written evidence in the proceedings. In respect of the said two witnesses, it has specifically been recorded by the Enquiry Officer that they have appeared and given their written evidence. Enquiry report does not show that they have deposed in the proceeding and the petitioner has been afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the said two persons. 6 All these infirmities have been raised by the petitioner in his reply dated 10.06.2008 submitted in response to the second show cause before the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has submitted a very elaborate reply enumerating all the infirmities, as noticed hereinabove. The said reply of the petitioner is Annexure 16 to the writ petition. The disciplinary authority, by the impugned order of punishment dated 01.07.2008, has, by a very cryptic and non-speaking order, proceeded to inflict the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service. The order dated 01.07.2008 issued by the Disciplinary Authority, which is Annexure 17 of the writ petition, shows total non-application of mind. Nothing has been considered by the Disciplinary Authority though very detailed reply to the second show cause has been submitted by the petitioner. The order dated 01.07.2008 issued by the Disciplinary Authority, which is Annexure 17 of the writ petition, shows total non-application of mind. Nothing has been considered by the Disciplinary Authority though very detailed reply to the second show cause has been submitted by the petitioner. The order of the Disciplinary Authority shows total lack of any consideration of the points raised by the petitioner and is a one paragraph order which reads as follows: ^^Jh ikloku }kjk izkIr cpko i=] xokgksa }kjk fn;s x;s c;ku] izHkkjh ftyk izca/kd] Hkkstiqj RkFkk dfVgkj }kjk fn;s x;s earO; rFkk lapkyu inkf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr vfnxe ds tk¡pksijkar ,oa leh{kksijkar vkjksih ds fo:} yxk;s x;s lHkh vkjksi ,oa iwjd vkjksi iw.kZr% izekf.kr gksrs gSaA vr,o foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dks lekIr djrs gq, fuEufyf[kr vkns”k fn;s tkrs gSa %&** 7 Having recorded this one paragraph in the order, the Disciplinary Authority has proceeded to inflict the punishment of dismissal from service and depriving the petitioner from payments other than subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and that the amount of loss for which the petitioner has been assessed being an amount of Rs 43,46,663.91 P be recovered from the dues of the petitioner and/or by other means through the civil or criminal Courts. 8 Even the said amount for which the petitioner has been held liable is by adding two charges in the order of the Disciplinary Authority which never constituted a charge in the charge memo and for which no proceeding has been conducted against the petitioner. The original charge memo dated 20.03.2006 only alleged that the petitioner has embezzled or caused a loss of Rs 41,76,942.11 P. However, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority is in respect of two additional amounts being an amount of Rs 1,66,840.31 P being the liability arising out of damage of some rice and an amount of Rs 2,881.49 P in respect of some other food grains. These two amounts, which have been added by the Disciplinary Authority in the final order of punishment, never constituted a charge and were never enquired into by the Enquiry Officer. 9 The Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order by assigning the reason that petitioner has failed to establish his innocence, such order prima facie is unsustainable inasmuch as it is for the Department to bring home the charges and the onus cannot be shifted to the delinquent. 9 The Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order by assigning the reason that petitioner has failed to establish his innocence, such order prima facie is unsustainable inasmuch as it is for the Department to bring home the charges and the onus cannot be shifted to the delinquent. 10 In view of the aforesaid infirmities, the impugned order of punishment suffers from total non-application of mind and total lack of consideration of the defence put forth by the petitioner in his reply to the second show cause by which he has highlighted the various infirmities in the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer including the proceedings conducted without there being any Presenting Officer and without supplying the petitioner the written evidence which has been relied on by the Enquiry Officer and in support of which the witnesses have not appeared before the Enquiry Officer. 11 The impugned order of punishment dated 01.07.2008 in so far as it does not assign any reason and shows non-consideration of the petitioner’s case presented in the reply to second show cause, is, thus, violative of the principles of natural justice and unsustainable in law. The punishment order is, therefore, quashed. 12 As a result of quashing of the impugned order, it would be incumbent upon the authorities to proceed from the stage of second show cause and conclude the proceedings thereafter within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13 The petitioner’s entitlement as a result of quashing the impugned order would be subject to the final decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority. 14 With liberty aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.