Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 214 (ALL)

H. N. Srivastava v. Food Corporation of India

2020-01-20

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kapil Dev, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Kamesh Gupta, Advocate, for respondents. 2. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution is directed against orders dated 10.5.2001 and 21.11.2001 imposing penalty upon petitioner of reduction in rank from the post of Assistant Manager (D) to Assistant Grade-I (D) for a period of five years with immediate effect. The punishment orders also show that during period of penalty, pay shall be fixed at the stage from where he was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (D) from the post of Assistant Grade-I (D). The order of punishment has been confirmed in appeal vide Appellate Authority's order dated 15.3.2002, and this is also under challenge. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was no valid inquiry conducted against petitioner inasmuch Employer examined one S.C. Srivastava as PW-1 and his statement-in-chief was recorded but thereafter he did not appear and this witness was never allowed to be cross-examined by petitioner, hence his evidence could not have been read. Another witness A.U. Khan, Assistant Manager (General) was not relevant to prove the charge. Enquiry Officer himself has relied on statement of S.C. Srivastava to prove the charge against petitioner which evidence could not be relied. He further submitted that documents demanded in defence, which where relied on by Enquiry officer, were never supplied to petitioner, and this fact has been noticed by Enquiry Officer in his report, still he has submitted inquiry report holding charges proved and Disciplinary Authority has proceeded on the basis of this inquiry report, therefore, the entire proceedings are in utter violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The manner in which inquiry has been conducted has been noticed by Enquiry Officer in para 1 where he has given "Introduction" in para-1 of inquiry report and the same reads as under: "I was appointed as Enquiry Officer in above case vide letter dated 29-5-2000 and Shri Z. Zaffar was appointed as Presenting officer. The P.O. expressed his non-availability for one month due to his preoccupation with dates in other cases. Finally a date for P/H was fixed on 11-7-2000 which was not attended by the CO. The matter was reported to R/O Lucknow with a letter addressed to DM (Vig) dated 11-7-2000. The P.O. expressed his non-availability for one month due to his preoccupation with dates in other cases. Finally a date for P/H was fixed on 11-7-2000 which was not attended by the CO. The matter was reported to R/O Lucknow with a letter addressed to DM (Vig) dated 11-7-2000. Next date for P/H was fixed for 3-8-2000 which was attended by the P.O. & CO. The proceedings started with the completion of P/H and were again interrupted by non-receipt of documents by the CO. from D.M. Sitapur and non-availability of Sh. S.C. Srivastava DM (Investigation) and PW-1 in his case due to his preoccupation. The PW-1 finally appeared for prosecution on 1-9-2000 and his statement for examination-in-chief was recorded. The CO., however, requested for allowing him cross-examination of PW-1 later as he was not supplied with the required defence documents. It was permitted. Subsequently next date was fixed for hearing on 17-10-2000 at R/O Lucknow. PW-1 Sh. S.C. Srivastava reported being seriously ill and proceeded on long leave. Hearing could not be conducted further. S.R.M. was also informed on non-supply of defence documents by D.M. Sitapur. After ascertaining availability of PW-1 from R.M., R/O Lucknow the next date was fixed on 6-11-2000 and the hearing was concluded on 8-11-2000. From the above, it is evident that the period of one and half month from 29-9-2000 to 5-11-2000 no hearing could be conducted on account of PW-1's illness and consequent non-availability while a period of one month each hearing had to wait on account of non availability of P.O. and CO. A total gap of 3 months plus had to be wasted on non-availability of vital officials preoccupation. The CO. and P.O. were asked to submit their respective briefs by 20th. The P.O. has submitted his brief in stipulated time while the C.O. has submitted his brief quite late which was received by the undersigned on 27th only and the report has been submitted on 26-11-2000. It merits to be appreciated that out of allotted time of six months to the E.Os' a good part of the same goes in vain due to preoccupied P.Os. evasive or reluctant COs. and unwilling/suffering P.Ws." 5. He further submitted that Enquiry Officer, in fact, in the Analysis, has not discussed as to how charge was proved against petitioner. It merits to be appreciated that out of allotted time of six months to the E.Os' a good part of the same goes in vain due to preoccupied P.Os. evasive or reluctant COs. and unwilling/suffering P.Ws." 5. He further submitted that Enquiry Officer, in fact, in the Analysis, has not discussed as to how charge was proved against petitioner. Instead he has explained, how petitioner could not disprove the charges, as if the charge is proved suo moto and it is the onus upon petitioner to disprove the same. Analysis recorded by Enquiry Officer reads as under: "Going through the Exhibits, proceedings and evidences rendered by PWs, and Dws. and after an assessment of prosecution and defence briefs, it has been found that the centre point of allegation was not making proper recording on labour list and I. Cards. Initially there was a list of 30 labourers referred through Exb. P/2. Subsequently a list of 120 labourers has been verified by the C.O. and I. Cards have been issued for 120 labourers. In fact the list of labourers was prepared by the H.T.C. and I Cards were also prepared by the same H.T.C. Mohd. Saleem and countersigned by the CO. who happened to be AM (D)/Depot Incharge of FSD Gola, The CO. had, during proceedings and narrations in the briefs, tried to side track the main issue. He has repeatedly stated that list of labourers was not prepared by him but Mohd. Saleem H.T.C. He has also stated that it was not verified by him but only countersigned by him. This is very amusing when a responsible officer/official signs a document it is incumbent on him that the contents of the document he is signing on is true and in tune and the countersignature is not a merely decoration monument but it is very much a verification of the facts incorporated in the documents he is signing. In the present case, it is not more important who ordered him to countersign the list and I Cards because it is very clearly stated in the H.Q. circular dated 17th May, 1998, placed at Exb. p/1. The A.M.(D), (CO. In the present case, it is not more important who ordered him to countersign the list and I Cards because it is very clearly stated in the H.Q. circular dated 17th May, 1998, placed at Exb. p/1. The A.M.(D), (CO. in the present case) was required to ensure incorporating of period, ALC licence number, irrespective of the fact whether the ALC licence was obtained prior to his joining at this depot or after, as he was also required to ensure that the issue of list and I. Cards was properly dated and his signature should bear the date. By not incorporating or ensuring incorporating of above information on the labour list and I. Cards reflected at Exb. p/3 and P/4 has definitely compelled F.C.I. to go into unnecessary litigation." 6. Learned counsel for respondents, on the contrary, contended that adequate opportunity of defence was give, hence no interference is called for. 7. There are two points to be considered: (1) Whether petitioner was given adequate opportunity of defence or not? (2) Whether Enquiry Officer has discussed as to how the charge was proved against petitioner or it has illegally shifted onus to disprove charge, upon petitioner. 8. Coming to the first aspect of matter, it is evident from inquiry report that petitioner demanded certain documents in defence, which were relied upon by Enquiry Officer, to be produced in the inquiry proceedings but the same were not supplied to him. Secondly, it is also evident that Sri S.C. Srivastava, PW-1 appeared and his statement-in-chief was recorded. Thereafter, petitioner sought to cross-examine him after making the demanded documents available to him by Enquiry Officer but S.C. Srivastava thereafter did not appear at all in inquiry proceedings. Para-1 of inquiry report also says that with regard to non supply of document by Divisional Manager, Sitapur to petitioner, Information was given to Central Regional Manager and Enquiry Officer fixed 6.11.2002 but there is nothing on record to show that those documents were made available to petitioner by or on 6.11.2002. It is evident that on 8.11.2002, itself, inquiry was closed. Thereafter neither defence documents were made available to petitioner nor after supplying the said documents to petitioner, PW-1, S.C. Srivastava, was allowed to be cross-examined. Enquiry Officer, instead, abruptly closed inquiry and submitted inquiry report. The above facts make it clear that inquiry was not conducted after giving due opportunity of defence to petitioner. Thereafter neither defence documents were made available to petitioner nor after supplying the said documents to petitioner, PW-1, S.C. Srivastava, was allowed to be cross-examined. Enquiry Officer, instead, abruptly closed inquiry and submitted inquiry report. The above facts make it clear that inquiry was not conducted after giving due opportunity of defence to petitioner. 9. The manner in which a departmental inquiry should be conducted has been described in detail in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510 , wherein Court has culled out certain principles as under: "(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any." 10. It is also well-settled by series of judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court that before imposing major penalty, appropriate oral inquiry has to be conducted failing which major penalty cannot be sustained and it may be useful to refer few of them as under: 11. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , Court has held: "An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , Court has held: "An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have. been proved against the respondents." "When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a Government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service." (emphasis added) 12. Similar view was taken in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 , where Court said: "Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence." 13. This Court also has taken same view earlier in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director, U.P. Co-op. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence." 13. This Court also has taken same view earlier in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director, U.P. Co-op. Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., Kanpur and another, 2000(1) UPLBEC 541 and said: "In our opinion after the petitioner replied to the charge-sheet a date should have been fixed for the enquiry and the petitioner should have been intimated the date, time and place of the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should have been led in his presence and he should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him and also he should have been given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner in response to this intimation had failed to appear for the enquiry then an ex parte enquiry should have been held but the petitioner's service should have not been terminated without holding an enquiry. In the present case it appears that no regular enquiry was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet he was given a show-cause notice and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. In our opinion this was not the correct legal procedure and there was violation of the rules of natural justice. Since no date for enquiry was fixed nor any enquiry held in which evidence was led in our opinion the impugned order is clearly violative of natural justice." "In Meenglas Tea Estate v. The workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 , the Supreme Court observed "It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way to cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted". In S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank, 1995 Supp. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted". In S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 212, the Supreme Court set aside a dismissal order which was passed without giving the employee an opportunity of cross-examination. In State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158 , the Supreme Court held that omission to give opportunity to the officer to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. The Court also held that in the enquiry witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations, and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine these witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. In Punjab National Bank v. A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160 , (vide para 66) the Supreme Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in the presence of the charge-sheeted employee and he must be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. The same view was taken in A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 396, and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 78 (SC). Even if the employee refuses to participate in the enquiry the employer cannot straightaway dismiss him, but he must hold and ex parte enquiry where evidence must be led vide Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348 , Uma Shankar v. Registrar, 1992 (65) FLR 674 (All)." 14. The above judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhas Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills and others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 , wherein Court held: "In cases where a major punishment proposed to be imposed an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee request, for it or not. For this it is necessary to issue a notice to the employee concerned intimating him date, time and place of the enquiry as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541 , against which SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16-8-2000." 15. For this it is necessary to issue a notice to the employee concerned intimating him date, time and place of the enquiry as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541 , against which SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16-8-2000." 15. This Court in Rajesh Prasad Mishra v. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and others, 2010(1) UPLBEC 216, after a detailed analysis of earlier precedents on subject, observed as under: "Now coming to the question, what is the effect of non-holding of oral inquiry, I find that, in a case where the inquiry officer is appointed, oral inquiry is mandatory. The charges are not deemed to be proved suo motu merely on account of levelling them by means of the charge-sheet unless the same are proved by the department before the inquiry officer and only thereafter it is the turn of delinquent employee to place his defence. Holding oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty, as held by Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 . The question as to whether non holding of oral inquiry can vitiate the entire proceeding or not has also been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in the case of Salahuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ESC 1667 and the Court has clearly held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment." 16. In Mahesh Narain Gupta v. State of U.P and others, 2011 (5) ADJ 177 (DB), also this Court had an occasion to deal with the same issue and held: "At this stage, we are to observe that in the disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent, the department is just like a plaintiff and initial burden lies on the department to prove the charges which can certainly be proved only by collecting some oral evidence or documentary evidence, in presence and notice charged employee. Even if the department is to rely its own record/document which are already available, then also the enquiry officer by looking into them and by assigning his own reason after analysis, will have to record a finding that hose documents are sufficient enough to prove the charges. In no case, approach of the Enquiry Officer that as no reply has been submitted, the charge will have to be automatically proved can be approved. This will be erroneous. It has been repeatedly said that disciplinary authority has a right to proceed against delinquent employee in ex parte manner but some evidence will have to be collected and justification to sustain the charges will have to be stated in detail. The approach of the enquiry officer of automatic prove of charges on account of non filing of reply is clearly misconceived and erroneous. This is against the principle of natural justice, fair play, fair hearing and, thus, enquiry officer has to be cautioned in this respect." 17. In another case in Subhash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2011(8) ADJ 395 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court, after survey of law on this issue, said: "It is well-settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner that thing has to be done in that very manner. We are of the considered opinion that any punishment awarded on the basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance with the enquiry rules meant for that very purposes is unsustainable in the eye of law. We are further of the view that the procedure prescribed under the inquiry rules for imposing major penalty is mandatory in nature and unless those procedures are followed, any outcome inferred thereon will be of no avail unless the charges are so glaring and unrefutable which does not require any proof. The view taken by us find support from the judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma v. Managing. Director and another, 2000 (1)UPLBEC 541 . The view taken by us find support from the judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma v. Managing. Director and another, 2000 (1)UPLBEC 541 . A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ESC 1667, held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which can vitiate the order of disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment has observed as under: "10. ...... Non holding of oral inquiry in such a case, is a serious matter and goes to the root of the case. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 , considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subash Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills and others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 and Laturi Singh v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 6.5.2005." 18. The above view has been referred to and reiterated in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Raghunath Singh Rana and others (supra) and following the above authorities, this Court has also already taken same view, recently, in Hridya Shankar Tiwari v. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others, 2019 (4) ALJ 361. 19. The principle of law emanates from above judgments are that initial burden is on the department to prove the charges. In case of procedure adopted for inflicting major penalty, the department must prove the charges by oral evidence also which has not been done in the case in hand and, therefore, question-1 is answered in favour of petitioner. 20. Now coming to second question, I find that in the Analysis para, Enquiry Officer has stated as to in what petitioner failed to disprove the charges but I do not find any discussion as to how charge was found proved against petitioner. 20. Now coming to second question, I find that in the Analysis para, Enquiry Officer has stated as to in what petitioner failed to disprove the charges but I do not find any discussion as to how charge was found proved against petitioner. Unless the charge is proved by Department by adducing evidence, the question of consideration of evidence of defence on the part of employee does not arise. This process cannot be treated as a substitute of proving the charge. It is for employer to prove the charge first unless the charge has been admitted by delinquent employee which is not in the case in hand. 21. Inquiry report in this regard is also unreasoned inasmuch Enquiry Officer though has submitted a seven pages report but broadly I find that, what he has said is that he has given Introduction, the details of proceedings, details of charge, prosecution case, defence case and, thereafter has given analysis in one paragraph which I have quoted above. I am clearly of the view that how charge has been found proved, nothing is discussed and inquiry report is unreasoned. 22. In Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and others, AIR 1985 SC 1121 , Court said: "An enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry must show the reasons for the conclusion. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that the conclusion is supported by reasons. This is too well-settled to be supported by a precedent. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 671 , this Court observed that a speaking order will at best be a reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard. Similarly in Mahabir Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 1302 ,. this Court reiterated that satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appealed to the authority. It should all the more be so where the quasi-judicial enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or attach a stigma to the character. In this case the enquiry report is an order sheet which merely produces the stage through which the enquiry passed. It should all the more be so where the quasi-judicial enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or attach a stigma to the character. In this case the enquiry report is an order sheet which merely produces the stage through which the enquiry passed. It clearly disclosed a total non-application of mind and it is this report on which the General Manager acted in terminating the service of the appellant. There could not have been a gross case of non-application of mind and it is such an enquiry which has found favour with the Labour Court and the High Court. 6. Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an order sheet and no correlation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to observe that it is not an enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was no enquiry in this case worth the name and the order of termination based on such proceeding disclosing non-application of mind would be unsustainable." 23. Following Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer (supra) a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a Member) in Special Appeal No. 533 of 2004 (Chandra Pal Singh v. Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Federation and others) decided on 12.10.2006, held as under: "Now coming to the question whether the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry Officer has considered evidence and materials available on record, if any, and is it a speaking report, we find that the inquiry Officer has simply reproduced the charges as contained in the charge-sheet. Thereafter he has mentioned that no reply has been received from the delinquent employee and then in the next para he has recorded his conclusion that in the absence of any reply from the delinquent employee the charges stand proved. Thereafter he has mentioned that no reply has been received from the delinquent employee and then in the next para he has recorded his conclusion that in the absence of any reply from the delinquent employee the charges stand proved. In similar circumstance, a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (S.R. Alam, J.) was a member, in Special Appeal No. 1196 of 1999 (Committee of Management v. Abdul Cadeer @ Abdul Qadir and others), where a similar inquiry report came up for consideration, after considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and others, AIR 1985 SC 1121 , held as under: "In the instant case, as noticed above, the inquiry officer has not said anything as to what was the material or evidence on record on which he applied his mind and thereupon reached to the conclusion that the charges stand proved. It is true that in the matter of departmental proceeding scope of judicial review is limited and the only thing to be seen is as to whether there is any error in the decision making process or there is denial of adequate opportunity to the delinquent in defending the charges or there is any violation of substantive provision of law but this Court will reappraise the evidence and sit on appeal over the order passed by the departmental authority but it has to be seen whether finding or conclusion is based on some evidence or not. This Court can interfere where it is found that proceeding is conducted in violation of principle of natural justice or of statutory rules prescribing the mode for holding enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence or where the conclusion or finding is such that no prudent person would have ever reached the same. As noticed above, it does not appear from the report of the inquiry officer that any record or evidence was brought before him by the department in support of the charges on the basis of which he has found him guilty of the charges. He has held the petitioner-respondent No. 1 guilty only on the ground that he did not appear before him despite notice and, therefore, the charges stand proved. He has held the petitioner-respondent No. 1 guilty only on the ground that he did not appear before him despite notice and, therefore, the charges stand proved. This, in fact, is no inquiry in the eye of law and, therefore, the order of dismissal based on such inquiry report cannot sustain and has to be quashed." The inquiry report in the case in hand, is virtually written in similar manner as was under consideration before this Court in Committee of Management v. Abdul Cadeer @ Abdul Qadir (Supra). It was held that the same was not in accordance with law and the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee pursuant to such inquiry report cannot be sustained." 24. A Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in Writ Petition (Writ-A) No. 25423 of 2000 (Anil Kumar Sinha v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 8.9.2016 has referred to and relied on the above authorities taking similar view. 25. Second question, therefore, is also answered in favour of petitioner. 26. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 10.5.2001, 21.11.2001 and 15.3.2002 (Annexures 2, 3 and 1 respective to the writ petition) are hereby set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as also cost, which I quantify to Rs. 25,000/-.