JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, ACJ. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.10.2018 and the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition as also misc. application filed by the respondent Daulat Ram Sawlani against order of his dismissal from service dated 27.03.1997 passed by the appellant in disciplinary proceedings, has been allowed. 2. It may be noted at the outset that the original writ petitioner Daulat Ram Sawlani died during pendency of the writ petition and therefore the matter was prosecuted by his legal heirs. 3. Learned Single Judge was persuaded to allow the writ petition as he found that the allegations of embezzlement in the various articles of charge sheet were mainly levelled against co-delinquent Abdul Wahid Khan, Cashier with the original writ petitioner and Administrative Officer, P.K. Bose. 4. Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single has failed to appreciate that even though in first four articles of charges, allegation with regard to embezzlement was made against Abdul Wahid Khan, Cashier. It was alleged that the respondent-writ petitioner helped him in making embezzlement of the amount. It is submitted that Article No. 5 of the charge sheet was to the effect that withdrawal through the cheques of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and more prior to October, 1995 and thereafter, amount of Rs. 15,000/- and more could be made only under the authority of the Administrative Officer and in order to circumvent this restriction, the respondent manipulated withdrawal of smaller sums of money in same day in piecemeal though the total amount exceeded outer limit indicated aforesaid and no fidelity guarantee was taken from Abdul Wahid Khan. No steps were taken to maintain proper cash book and cash chest. Cash book was not properly maintained. All these allegations were proved against the respondent-writ petitioner as he was accountant and therefore, it was his responsibility to maintain the account books and the cash book. Abdul Wahid Khan, Cashier was working under his supervision. No steps were taken to maintain proper cash book and cash chest. Cash book was not properly maintained. All these allegations were proved against the respondent-writ petitioner as he was accountant and therefore, it was his responsibility to maintain the account books and the cash book. Abdul Wahid Khan, Cashier was working under his supervision. Learned counsel has taken the Court through the Enquiry Report (Annexure 5 of the writ petition) and argued that even though the charges of embezzlement were mainly against Abdul Wahid Khan, Cashier but the nature of evidence that has been discussed by the Enquiry Officer indicates that the main culprit was the original writ petitioner and not Abdul Wahid Khan, who was working only at his behest and at his instance. Money was eventually embezzlement by the respondent-writ petitioner. 5. Learned counsel argued that learned Single Judge erred in law in recording a finding that charges of embezzlement could not be held proved against the respondent. When the kind of charges are read along with the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the same would prove the charge of embezzlement against the respondent. The purpose of issuance of charge sheet is to ensure that the delinquent becomes aware of the charges against him and therefore, when the basic facts have been stated in the charge sheet which are further amplified from the statements of witnesses as also the statement of the co-delinquent, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondent. The enquiry proceedings were held in complete compliance of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the learned Single Judge erred in law in entertaining the writ petition in the face of availability of alternative, speedy and efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein if the Industrial Court could have come to conclusion that enquiy was not fair, it would have permitted the appellant to lead evidence before it. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that none of the charges were specifically asserted against the respondent-writ petitioner including Charge No. 5 and same were mainly directed against co-delinquent of the writ petitioner, Abdul Wahid Khan, Cashier. Learned counsel submitted that Abdul Wahid Khan was initially awarded penalty of reversion but in the appeal, that penalty was also set aside and he was exonerated. Learned counsel submitted that Abdul Wahid Khan was initially awarded penalty of reversion but in the appeal, that penalty was also set aside and he was exonerated. The Administrative Officer was punished only with stoppage of 2 annual grade increments with cumulative effect. 7. Learned counsel submitted that upon reading of all five articles of charges, the same could not have justified imposition of extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Even with regard to Charge No. 5, there is no evidence that the cheques of smaller amount were issued under the signatures of the respondent. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 9. What has weighed with the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition in the present case is that allegations of none of the five charges was directly against the respondent-writ petitioner. In all the charges, allegation of embezzlement was mainly against Abdul Wahid Khan, Cashier of the appellant and what was alleged was that the respondent cooperated him in the act of embezzlement or rather facilitate embezzlement. We have been taken through the charge sheet and all five articles of charges and we are inclined to agree with the learned Single Judge that in first four articles of charges, charge of embezzlement was made against Abdul Wahid Khan, Cashier, who has eventually been exonerated. Therein, there is no specific allegation of embezzlement against the respondent. All that has been alleged is that he helped Abdul Wahid Khan in the act of embezzlement. As regard Charge No. 5, on specific query by the Court, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out whether the cheques were issued under the signatures of the respondent. Findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on all the five charges cannot be held to be proved beyond standard of preponderance of probabilities. Learned Single Judge, in our view, was justified in holding that unless charges are specifically framed against the respondent, he could not be held guilty. The Enquiry Officer could not have, without altering the charges at the instances of the appellant, recorded a finding of embezzlement against the respondent. Learned Single Judge, in our view, was justified in holding that unless charges are specifically framed against the respondent, he could not be held guilty. The Enquiry Officer could not have, without altering the charges at the instances of the appellant, recorded a finding of embezzlement against the respondent. We are therefore not inclined to upheld the argument that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, even if the charge of embezzlement has not been proved against him and that the allegation in the charge sheet was only that he helped the cashier in making the embezzlement. The argument of availability of alternative, speedy and efficacious remedy, in our view, has rightly been not upheld by the learned Single Judge because the writ petition in the present case was filed in the year 1999 and admitted on 31.03.2008. It remained pending for as long as 19 years, it would be mockery of justice if the High Court having not been able to decide the writ petition for such a long period, but eventually would have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative, speedy and efficacious remedy. 10. In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 11. Stay Application No. 1676/2019 also stands dismissed.