JUDGMENT : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. This is a writ petition challenging the following:- (i) The impugned charge-sheet dated 7.11.2015, framed against the petitioner by the Sr. Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jorhat Division office. (ii) The impugned final order dated 12.1.2017, issued by the ST. Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jorhat Division office ordering removal of the petitioner from service and recovery of a sum of Rs. 63,476/- (iii) The impugned order dated 28.3.2017, issued by the Zonal Manager (Appellate Authority) rejecting the appeal of the writ petitioner against the order dated 12.1.2017 of the Sr. Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) of LIC. (iv) And the impugned order dated 16.08.2017, issued by the Chairman, LICI, under Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960, wherein the Memorial dated 11.05.2017 submitted by the petitioner was rejected. AND Praying for issuance of appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner with all consequential benefits and also to refund the sum of Rs. 63,476/- which was realised from his gratuity. 2. Heard Mr. R. Iralu, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. L. Iralu, on behalf of the petitioner, and also heard Mr. S. Temjen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and, Mr. Z. Kulnu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 land 5. Before the rival contentions of the parties are laid and discussed, it would be appropriate to briefly state here the facts and circumstances which led to the filing of this writ petition:- The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant (Class-III) in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, vide order dt. 16.3.1996 and posted at Dimapur branch office of the company which is under Jorhat Division. After working in that position for about 10 years he was promoted on 28/02/2006 to the post of Higher Grade Assistant. While he was serving in that Grade, the Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dimapur Branch vide his letter No. DBO/F & A/595, dated 23.06.2008 informed the Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, (Circular Road Dimapur that, 2 groups of persons classified as Group A and B have been appointed as authorised signatories of the Corporation for the current account No. 1257, 1258 and 1259 of the LIC India, Dimapur Branch. And, in that letter the petitioner's name was mentioned among the persons in Group-B category. During the year 2015, in connection with an alleged irregularity which is stated to have occurred in the office of the LIC, Dimapur, a charge-sheet was framed against the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 i.e. Sr. Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority), and a copy of the same was served to him on 07.11.2015. In that charge-sheet, 8 charges were made against the petitioner and, the main charge was of having caused a loss of a sum, amounting to Rs. 1,87,500/- of the LIC, Dimapur Branch and of haying violated regulation 21, 24 and 39(1) of the LIC of India (Staff Regulation 1960). In the same charge-sheet, he was directed to submit a written response as to whether he admits or denies the charges. As directed, the petitioner submitted his written reply dated 02.12.2018 wherein he denied all the charges leveled against him. Thereafter, on 07.03.2016, 08.03.2016, 18.03.2016 and 24.04.2016 hearings were conducted on the charges, wherein, the Presenting officer i.e. respondent No. 5, produced 4 witnesses; PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4. The Presenting Officer also produced certain documents in support of the charges and they were marked as P1 to P20. The petitioner also submitted certain documents in his defense and they were marked as D1 to D10. Hearing was conducted before the Enquiry Officer who is respondent No. 4 in this writ petition. On completion of the hearing, the Presenting Officer, submitted his written brief dated 03.05.2016 and the petitioner also submitted his reply against the same, vide his reply dated 10.05.2016, denying all the allegations made by the Presenting Officer. Subsequent to the above, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and a copy of the same was given to the petitioner with a covering letter dated 02.06.2016. In that letter, the petitioner was asked to submit his comment on the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 12.05.2016, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the same. Accordingly, the petitioner, through his letter dated 13.06.2016, addressed to the respondent No. 3, submitted his reply/comments denying all the findings of the Enquiry officer. In that letter, the petitioner was asked to submit his comment on the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 12.05.2016, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the same. Accordingly, the petitioner, through his letter dated 13.06.2016, addressed to the respondent No. 3, submitted his reply/comments denying all the findings of the Enquiry officer. Subsequent to submission of his comment/reply, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 08.11.2016, wherein, he was informed of the proposed penalties to be imposed on him and he was asked to answer as to why the penalties should not be imposed on him. The proposed penalties as mentioned in that show cause notice were, removal from service which shall not entail disqualification from future employment in terms of Regulation 39(1)(f) and, recovery of Rs. 63,476 in terms of Regulation 39(1)(c) of the 1960 Regulation. As directed in the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply through his letter dated 07.12.2016. After the submission of the petitioner's reply, the final order dated 12.01.2017 was issued by the respondent No. 3 wherein, the petitioner was held guilty of the charges leveled against him and, as in consequence, he was removed from service, and at the same time, directed to pay a sum of Rs. 63,476/-. In pursuance thereof, the sum of Rs. 63,476 was deducted from his gratuity amount in spite of his opposition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Zonal Manager (respondent No. 2), under Regulation 40 of the 1960 Regulations on 10.2.2017. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 28.3.2017, rejected the same. Aggrieved by the rejection of his appeal, the petitioner submitted a Memorial dated 11.5.2017, to the Chairman, LIC, India (respondent No. 1) under Regulation 49 of the 1960 Regulations. The respondent No. 1 (Chairman LIC India), vide the impugned order dated 16.8.2017 rejected the Memorial of the petitioner and upheld the order of the respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court praying as stated above. 3. Mr. R. Iralu, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submitted that 8 charges were framed against the petitioner out of which charges 1 to 6 are of similar nature, but none of them were proved. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court praying as stated above. 3. Mr. R. Iralu, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submitted that 8 charges were framed against the petitioner out of which charges 1 to 6 are of similar nature, but none of them were proved. He also submitted that in connection with the same case the Branch officer who was examined as PW-1 in this case and one more person were also charged but they were let off with a light punishment of withholding their monthly increment only. Therefore, the respondents were partial and discriminatory while conducting the enquiry and making the decision. Mr. Iralu, learned counsel, by referring to the charges against the petitioner and the statement of the 4 PWs examined during the enquiry submitted that the charges were not proved and the actions of the petitioner were as per his duties assigned. He further submitted that preparation of vouchers, checking and validation of cheques and depositing of the same to concerned accounts are not the result of the petitioner's action alone but involved the approval of the Branch Officer and further actions of the cashier and persons in the accounts department. Therefore, the petitioner alone cannot be singled out and punished even if anything irregular has been found. After having submitted as such, the learned counsel also submitted that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not file their affidavit-in-opposition even though mala fide on their part, during the proceeding of the enquiry have been alleged by the petitioner in this writ petition, therefore, the petitioner's averments has to be accepted. 4. On Charge No. 1, Mr. Iralu submitted that, the petitioner was authorized as part of his normal duties to prepare, check and validate vouchers and this is supported by the statement of PW-1 who is the Head of Department of accounts department. He then submitted that there was no evidence or finding proving that the petitioner this utilized the cheque in opening 7 new policy numbers; and how the sum of Rs. 30,000/- was misappropriated by him. Therefore, mere preparation of cheque and validation of vouchers and cheques which went through the scrutiny of the Head of Department will not or cannot make the petitioner guilty of the charges. Mr. 30,000/- was misappropriated by him. Therefore, mere preparation of cheque and validation of vouchers and cheques which went through the scrutiny of the Head of Department will not or cannot make the petitioner guilty of the charges. Mr. Iralu, furthermore, submitted that the petitioner belongs to Group-B of authorized signatories of the company's account therefore, he cannot be held guilty in isolation without holding the class-A signatories who also signed on the cheques. 5. On Charge No. 2, Mr. Iralu submitted that the petitioner was responsible of preparing and checking the vouchers as per his duties assigned but, after the cheques were handed over to the Sub-Staff it is beyond his authority and knowledge as to what is done with the same. He also submitted that the petitioner is not the custodian of letters of the parties requesting for issuance of fresh cheques therefore, he produced a copy which was marked as D-8 but the same was rejected by the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Iralu submitted also that production of the original document was the duty of the office and the petitioner should have been either given the same or it should have been produced at the time of enquiry to prove the truth. But since the original was not produce by the office the petitioner could not have been held guilty. Mr. Iralu went on to submit that there was no proof or findings how the renewal premium were opened. He also submitted that there was no finding as to how the amount of Rs. 15,000/- was misappropriated by the petitioner. The learned counsel went on and submitted that the 4 policies were renewed by 3 different agents but the agents were neither examined nor charge-sheeted. Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer was presumptive and not substantiated by evidence. 6. On charge No. 3, the findings arrived at according to the learned counsel are based on mere surmises which are not supported by evidence. Mr. Iralu further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the cheques were validated and signed by the petitioner but as authorized and approved by the Branch Manager. Mr. Iralu also submitted that there was proof that the value of the cheque was received by the brother of the deceased of the policy holder, therefore, the charge against the accused was only that of absence of request letter for issuance of fresh cheque. Mr. Iralu also submitted that there was proof that the value of the cheque was received by the brother of the deceased of the policy holder, therefore, the charge against the accused was only that of absence of request letter for issuance of fresh cheque. He then submitted further that the petitioner is not the custodian of such letter and he could have never initiated the process for issuance of fresh cheque without the approval of the Branch Manager. The learned counsel also submitted that the witness, one Mr. S. Belho, an employee who prepared the stale cheque was neither examined nor charge-sheeted. He also submitted that one Mr. M. Kath (Hod) who passed the cheque was also charge-sheeted but he was also examined as PW-3. Mr. Iralu further submitted that in the absence of the original request letter of the policy holder any finding based on the same and as to how and why the cheque was splited into 2, how and why part of the amount was utilized for loan payment and by whom, could not have been arrived at by the respondents. And the same reason the conclusion that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duty also could not have been arrived at. Finally, Mr. Iralu submitted also that there was no finding as to how the sum of Rs. 25,000/- was misappropriated by the petitioner or how it was used for loan re-payment. He also added that record would show that the loan re-payment was done by an agent but the agent was neither examined as witness nor he was charged for the same. 7. On the Charge 4, Mr. Iralu submitted that the fact that the petitioner was responsible for preparing and checking the vouchers does not by itself establish that he had misused the cheques. Elaborating his contention, Mr. Iralu submitted that the BOC is a receipt obtained while opening a new policy. However, there was no finding as to why and how the new policy was opened. In fact the new policy was opened by the agent with code No. 01111/595 but the agent was neither examined as PW nor was he charge-sheeted. The learned counsel further submitted that no finding was recorded as to how the sum of Rs. 10,000/- was misappropriated by the petitioner. In fact the new policy was opened by the agent with code No. 01111/595 but the agent was neither examined as PW nor was he charge-sheeted. The learned counsel further submitted that no finding was recorded as to how the sum of Rs. 10,000/- was misappropriated by the petitioner. Therefore, the findings on the charge does not provide sufficient ground to hold that there was lack of sincerity, integrity and devotion to duty on the part of the petitioner while performing his duties. 8. On the Charge No. 5, Mr. Iralu submitted that the petitioner's duty ends with handing over the cheque to the Sub-staff for further processing. Therefore, the allegation that he intentionally allowed the fresh cheque to be utilized for payment of renewal premium and opening of new policy is utterly baseless. The learned counsel further submitted that there was no finding as to who utilized the fresh cheque for renewal premium and opening of new policies. Furthermore, Mr. Iralu submitted that record shows that the policies were renewed and opened by 3 different agents but none of them were examined as witness nor were they charge-sheeted. Mr. Iralu also submitted that though documents shows that the sum of Rs. 25,000/- was received by the individual concerned there is no evidence to show that the petitioner handed over the cash to the policy holder. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for payment of the amount mentioned above or misappropriation of the same. Mr. Iralu, thereafter submitted that there was no finding as to how and who refunded the amount of Rs. 10,554/- to the agents account. Without such finding, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the charge on mere presumption. He then submitted also that, in fact, the conclusion drawn against the petitioner shows that, there was strong mala fide intent against him on the part of the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer. 9. On the Charge No. 6, Mr. Iralu submitted that though the petitioner prepared, checked and signed the cheque what happens thereafter is the responsibility of other staffs. However, no effort was made by the respondent to find out who misused the cheque and how. Just because the petitioner prepared the cheque and signed does not mean that he can be held responsible for what was done with the same. However, no effort was made by the respondent to find out who misused the cheque and how. Just because the petitioner prepared the cheque and signed does not mean that he can be held responsible for what was done with the same. In fact, the agent with code 00428/595 who was neither examined nor charge-sheeted was responsible as per record in renewing the policy. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner on this charge is baseless. 10. Mr. Iralu, learned senior counsel submitted that in so far as the alteration of name is concerned the responsibility lies with the Policy Servicing Department and it is only after that department conveys its approval through the HOD or Branch Manager that the fresh cheque will ultimately be processed by the accounts department. Mr. Iralu also submitted that in this case, after the indication of the Policy Servicing Department, the accounts department prepared the voucher but it was sent back to the Policy Department for passing the same and it was thereafter only that the accounts department prepared the cheque. Therefore, it is the Policy Servicing Department which plays a major role in this. However, these facts were ignored by the Enquiry Officer and the explanation of the petitioner were not taken into consideration at all. Mr. Iralu also submitted that the document P17 also shows that the policy holder has 2 names with the same policy number but this fact was also ignored during the enquiry. Mr. Iralu also submitted that inspite of the petitioner's request the respondents did not produce the original consent letter of the policy holder. This has also; caused prejudice to the petitioner, because, without production of those documents the conclusion arrived on the issue can at best be based on presumption only. He also submitted that the consent letter of the policy holder is relevant because it would have shown who approved the letter for altering the names of the policyholder. 11. On the Charge 8, Mr. Iralu submitted that as stated in charge 7, in this charge also, the petitioner asked for production of original documents but none of them were produced. Mr. Iralu further submitted that the documents produced during the enquiry are all irrelevant for the purpose of proving the charge. 11. On the Charge 8, Mr. Iralu submitted that as stated in charge 7, in this charge also, the petitioner asked for production of original documents but none of them were produced. Mr. Iralu further submitted that the documents produced during the enquiry are all irrelevant for the purpose of proving the charge. In fact the document marked P 18 only shows and established that the policy holder has 2 names with the same policy number and the documents marked as P 19 falls under the supervision and control of the Policy Servicing Department He also submitted that absence of signature of the policy holder on the document 6 is answerable only by the Policy Servicing Department and not by the accounts section. Mr. Iralu also submitted that the sum of Rs. 15,000/- which is in question in Charge 8, was recovered from the agents concerned and it is proved by Tr. No. 40713 dated 07.12.2015, but even this fact was ignored by the respondents in order to pin responsibility on the petitioner. After having made the submissions given above, the learned senior counsel submitted that though it was alleged that the petitioner had caused loss of Rs. 1,87,500/- to the LIC no evidence was produced which would proved that the said sum was actually lost by the LICI due to the act of commission or omission of the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that though the allegation or charge was loss of Rs. 1,87,5000/- the amount recovered was only Rs. 63,476/-. This itself shows that the respondents were not sure of their case and they had no concrete prove for the charges against the petitioner. 12. Mr. Temjen, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, besides placing the relevant records of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, as result of which he was dismissed from service submitted that there is nothing wrong in the enquiry proceedings and the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the punishment meted out to the petitioner was justified and there is no reason to interfere with the enquiry proceedings and the punishment given to the petitioner. Therefore, the punishment meted out to the petitioner was justified and there is no reason to interfere with the enquiry proceedings and the punishment given to the petitioner. He also submitted that since the order passed by the appellate authority was based on the findings made by the Enquiry Officer which are cogent and based on evidence given by the Presenting Officer, there is nothing wrong in it and there is no reason to interfere with it too. The learned counsel further submitted that the grievance of the petitioner have been examined by the highest forum provided for appeal which is the Chairman of the Corporation, and the Chairman after having minutely examined the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the order of the appellate authority had dismissed the Memorial of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no reason why the same should be interfered with. 13. Mr. Z. Kulnu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 supported the submission of the learned counsel of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 14. Before proceeding any further, it would be, appropriate to give here the charges framed against the petitioner; Brief account of charge-sheet: I append herein below the gist of the charges contained in the charge-sheet dt 07.11.2015. Charge 1: The CSE prepared & checked a voucher for fresh cheque against state cheque No. 550731 for Rs. 30000/- against policy No. 440757109. The fresh cheque was prepared in favour of LICI & also signed by the CSE & deposited against renewal premium of pol Nos. 441711763, 442005198, 440544510, 441265558 & 441706366; Charge 2: The CSE prepared & checked a voucher for fresh cheque against stale cheque No. 555913 for Rs. 15000/- against pol No. 441713965, in favour of LICI which was also signed by the CSE. The fresh cheque was deposited towards renewal premium against pol Nos. 571550697, 584619560, 443490257 & 440623136. Charge 3: The CSE validated & signed fresh cheque to Rs. 25000/- against stale cheque No. 325347 of Rs. 739,28 & the balance amount was refunded to the party. The fresh cheque for Rs. 25000/- was deposited towards loan repayment against pol No. 44144688. Charge 4: The CSE prepared, checked & validated a voucher for fresh cheque against stale cheque No. 174279 for Rs. 10000/. The fresh cheque was prepared in favour of LICI & also signed by the CSE. The fresh cheque for Rs. 25000/- was deposited towards loan repayment against pol No. 44144688. Charge 4: The CSE prepared, checked & validated a voucher for fresh cheque against stale cheque No. 174279 for Rs. 10000/. The fresh cheque was prepared in favour of LICI & also signed by the CSE. The cheque was deposited towards proposal deposit in favour of Y.C. Jamir against pol No. 443506321. Charge 5: The CSE prepared checked and validated a voucher for fresh cheque in favour of LICI against stale cheque No. 176337 for Rs. 75000/- & also signed by the CSE. The cheque was deposited towards new proposals against Pol No. 443506709, 443506711, 443506713 & 443506714 & against renewal premium under Pol No. 443497033. Charge 6: The CSE prepared, checked and validated a voucher for fresh cheque against stale cheque No. 313387 & the fresh cheque for Rs. 7500 was utilized for renewal premium against pol No. 443494594, 443500192, 442014454 & 440542898. Charge 7: The CSE prepared checked & validated a voucher for fresh payment against stale cheque No. 311272 for Rs. 10000/-. The voucher was prepared in the name of one Nirmal Dey but the cheque was issued in the name of Chupathung. Charge 8: The CSE prepared checked & validated a voucher for fresh payment against stale cheque No. 69009. The voucher was prepared in the name of C Pon but the cheque was prepared in the name of Ms. Jolly. 15. After the above charges were framed against the petitioner, the Corporation examined 4 witnesses in support of the same and produced as many as 20 documents. The summary of the statement of the PWs and the documents as recorded by the Enquiry Officer are as follows; The PO presented the following witnesses: PW1-Mr. D. Singh, AO, SR No. 338264, then HOD (Aces). The PW1 admitted that he passed the vouchers for fresh payment against stale cheques as mentioned in Sl. No. 1, 4, 5 & 6 of the CS after the same being duly prepared & checked subject to receipt of necessary documents. PW2-Mr. C. Chubachang, HGA, SR No. 338991, then Cashier. The PW2 admitted that as per instruction of the HOD, he validated the vouchers as mentioned in Sl. No. 1 & 2 of the CS. PW3-Mr. M. Kath, then AO & HOD (PS/Claims) SR. No. 333765. PW2-Mr. C. Chubachang, HGA, SR No. 338991, then Cashier. The PW2 admitted that as per instruction of the HOD, he validated the vouchers as mentioned in Sl. No. 1 & 2 of the CS. PW3-Mr. M. Kath, then AO & HOD (PS/Claims) SR. No. 333765. The PW3 admitted that he passed the vouchers for fresh payment against stale cheques mentioned in Sl. No. 2, 7 & 8 and checked & passed the vouchers in Sl. No. 3 & signed the cheques against Sl. No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the CS after all formalities & procedures were complete. PW 4-Mr. Samir Sutradhar, SR No. 338843, then RC. The PW4 admitted that as per instruction of the HOD, he validated some vouchers as part from his regular jobs of sorting of cheques, affixing of seals, entry in dispatch register & sending the same for dispatch. The CSE did not present any witness. (a) Brief summary of PO's documents Document No. Description P 1 Fresh cheque No.107386 for Rs.30000/- P2 Fresh cheque No.107841 for Rs.15,000/- P3 Vr. Copy of cheque no.325418 for Rs.25000/- P3(A) Fresh cheque No.325418 for Rs.25,000/ P4 - Fresh cheque No.109173 for Rs.10,000/- P5 Fresh cheque No.116555 for Rs.75,000/- P6 Fresh cheque No.107007 for Rs.7500/- P7 Letter from BM/Dimapur regarding Cheque No.53743 &537404 P8(A) Cheque No.10700 for Rs.7500/ P9 Cheque No.116555 for Rs.75,000/ P10 Cheque No.109173 for Rs.10,000/ P11 Cheque No.107386 for Rs.30,000/ P12 Letter from Manager (L&HPF) dtd.02/12/2014 regarding genuineness of court affidavit P13 Advocates letter to Manager (L&HPF) regarding genuineness of court affidavit P14 Mediclaim master of Mr. P.N. Jami SR No.338895 P15 - Letter from BM/Dimapur dt 29/01/2015 seeking information about cheque No.537403. P16 Status report of Pol no.440756779 P17 Enquiry of voucher for cheque No.537403 P18 Enquiry of voucher cheque No.537404 P19 Enquiry of voucher cheque No.537404 P20 Status report of Pol no.442009607 16. It appears that the petitioner did not examined any witness but produced 9 documents and the list of the documents as recorded are as follows:- Brief summary of CSE’s documents Brief summary of CSE’s documents D1 Consent letter from party duly approved by BM i/c D2(A) Office order authorizing to sign cheques D2(B) same as above D3 Consent letter from party duly approved by MB i/c D4 Letter from Ms. Ainla Ao acknowledging receipt of SB amount in case D5 Consent letter from the party duly approved by BM i/c D6 Affidavit from Chujangmeren @ Jolly D7 Affidavit from Nirmal Dey @ Chupathung D8 Letter from T Sangtam acknowledging receipt of cheque amount against stale cheque D9 Letter from Akvulo Kath acknowledging receipt of cheque value against Pol no.442019437 17. After the enquiry was completed the Enquiry Officer recorded summary of the enquiry proceedings and findings on the charges as follows; Brief summary of the enquiry proceedings: 1. On 1st day on 07.03.2016, the preliminary hearing was conducted. Only exchange of documents took place on that day. The PO presented documents P1 to P5 while the CSE presented documents D1 to D7. The PO further presented the list of witnesses PW1 to PW4. 2. On 2nd day 8.3.2016 the 1st regular hearing was held. The PO presented witness PW1 to PW4 & their statements were recorded. The PO also presented additional documents P3(a) & P6. The minutes were handed over to the CSE & the witnesses also. 3. On the 3rd day on 18.03.2016 the 2nd regular hearing was held where the PO presented additional documents P7 & put forth some arguments. The CSE admitted that he received all the copies of documents for verification since the Photostate documents were not distinct & legible & not attested by competent authority & anything could be done by computer these days. When asked by the PO whether he would accept the documents if the same were duly attested by the bank officials, the CSE insisted on the original documents only which he would agree & accept. When asked why he prepared & checked the fresh cheque voucher for new cheque No. 107386, the CSE stated that due to shortage of staff in the Deptt he had to prepare & check the voucher. He expressed his ignorance about how the cheque was dealt with later. He also said that he had no knowledge how the fresh cheque issued in favour of LICI was adjusted against renewal premium of 7 different policies. When asked whether consent letter from the party was obtained & duly approved by the competent authority while preparing voucher for fresh cheque against stale cheque No. 555913, the CSE sought more time to produce the same as the consent letter might be with his HOD. When asked whether consent letter from the party was obtained & duly approved by the competent authority while preparing voucher for fresh cheque against stale cheque No. 555913, the CSE sought more time to produce the same as the consent letter might be with his HOD. When asked about the validation of fresh cheque voucher against stale cheque No. 325347 for Rs. 73928/- & splitting the fresh cheque into two different cheques of Rs. 25000/- and Rs. 48928/-, the CSE replied that he validated the voucher only after the verification of the same. The PO then asked him how the fresh cheque issued in favour of LICI at the request of the claimant Mr. R.K. Aditya, Pol No. 4401490428 was utilised against new pol on the life of Y.C. Jamir, he told he had no knowledge at all about the utilization of the cheque. The CSE could recognize his signatures in the cheque leaves P1 to P7. 4. In the 3rd regular hearing held on 26.04.2016, the PO produced & handed over 6 new documents P8(A) to P20. The CSE also handed over new documents D8, D9 & D10. The CSE admitted during questioning that he wrote the cheques P1, P5, P9 & P11 himself. He however refused to accept the xerox copies of the cheques as the same were not distinct and legible and also not attested by competent authority with name & designation seal. The CSE however insisted on the production of original documents only as anything can be done by computer these days. When asked by the PO about preparation & checking of fresh cheque voucher against stale cheque No. 176337, the CSE produced consent letter from party (D10) which was not duly approved by the BM i/c. He further stated that he had no idea at all how the fresh was utilized. The CSE further admitted that Ms. Jolly, Agent Code No. 1508/595 is his wife whose favour the amount of deposit under BOC No. 4438 was made. Charge-wise findings: In consideration of the documentary and oral evidences adduced by the Presenting Officer and the written declaration of the charge sheeted Employees and arguments put forth by the PO in his written brief, I give below my findings in respect of each charge separately. Charge-1 PO submitted P1 to prove the charge and the CSE submitted D1 in his support. Charge-1 PO submitted P1 to prove the charge and the CSE submitted D1 in his support. The CSE admitted that as approved by the BM i/c he prepared & checked the voucher favouring LICI & put his signature as authorized signatory. My findings-From the documents submitted and arguments put forth by the PO, it is proved that the CSE Mr. P.N. Jami willfully prepared, checked & signed the cheque issued in favour of LIC. But there was no proper control over the cheque. As a result of sheer negligence on the part of the CSE, the violation of the established procedures took place. I, therefore, hold this charge levelled against the CSE as fully established. Charge-2-PO submitted P2 & CSE submitted D8. The CSE admitted that he prepared & checked the voucher. But the document submitted by CSE lacks authenticity since the consent letter bears no date & approval by the competent authority. In this case also, there was no control over the Deptt & due to negligence on the part of the CSE, the cheque amount was adjusted against different policies in violation of the laid down procedures. My findings: In violation of the laid down procedures, the cheque was prepared in favour of LICI but utilized against renewal premium of different policy holders. I, therefore, hold this charge levelled against the CSE as fully established. Charge-3: PO submits P3 & P3(A) to prove the charge. The CSE admitted that only after the voucher was duly approved by the competent authority, he validated & signed the cheque. The CSE submitted D9. However the authenticity of the same is doubtful as no mention has been made with regard to the amount & also it bears no date & address of the declarant. Moreover, the stale cheque in question was a death claim cheque which cannot be ploughed back at the first instance as per laid down rules of the Corporation. My findings-It is proved that the CSE has filed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duty resulting in violation of established rules. I therefore, hold this charge levelled against CSE as fully established. Charge 4: PIO submits P4 and CSE produced D3 which was duly approved by the BM. The CSE further admitted that he prepared, checked and Validated the voucher & also signed the cheque as authorized signatory due to office exigency and interest of the Corporation. I therefore, hold this charge levelled against CSE as fully established. Charge 4: PIO submits P4 and CSE produced D3 which was duly approved by the BM. The CSE further admitted that he prepared, checked and Validated the voucher & also signed the cheque as authorized signatory due to office exigency and interest of the Corporation. My findings-The CSE failed to keep any control over the cheque issued in favour of LICI as a result of which the cheque was wrongly utilized. This amply proves the lack of sincerity & devotion on his part & also lack integrity. I, therefore, hold this charge levelled against the CSE as fully established. Charge-5: PO submits P5. The CSE admitted that he prepared & checked the voucher on receipt of consent letter duly approved by the BM. He submits D10 & D4. My findings: The CSE instead of ensuring proper utilization of cheque in favour of the LA, he showed his indifferent attitude & negligence of duty. I, therefore, hold this charge levelled against the CSE as fully established. Charge-6: PO submits P6 whereas CSE submits D5. The CSE admitted that he prepared, checked and validated the voucher only after it was duly approved by the BM with a clear-cut instruction to utilize the same in favour of the LA only. In spite of that, the CSE failed to exercise proper control over the cheque issued in favour of LICI which proves negligence of duty on his part. My findings-Negligence of duty on the part of CSE is proved, I therefore hold the charge levelled is fully established. Charge 7: PO submits P7, P13, P16 & P17. CSE submits D7. As per our panel advocate (document P13), the document D7 submitted by CSE is not genuine. When asked whether he prepared, checked & validated the voucher in the name of Nirmal Dey but the cheque was credited into the account of Chupathang, the CSE refused to comment on the matter until & unless the original vouchers are produced before him for verification. My findings-Preparation of cheque in the name of another person in place of the payee's name clearly proves the mala fide intention of the CSE. I, therefore, hold that the charge levelled the CSE is fully proved. Charge 8: PO submits P7, P12, P13, P18 & P19 and CSE submits D6. My findings-Preparation of cheque in the name of another person in place of the payee's name clearly proves the mala fide intention of the CSE. I, therefore, hold that the charge levelled the CSE is fully proved. Charge 8: PO submits P7, P12, P13, P18 & P19 and CSE submits D6. P18 and P19 reveals that the voucher was prepared in the name of Chujangmeren Pon whereas the cheque was credited into the account of Ms. Jolly. As per our panel advocate's report P13, D6 is not genuine. The CSE refused to comment whether he prepared, checked the voucher until & unless the original documents are produced before him. My findings-I therefore, hold that the charge levelled against the CSE is fully established. Taking into consideration all the documentary/oral evidences and the written arguments submitted by the PO and written declaration of the CSE during enquiry proceedings, I come into conclusion that all the charges mentioned in the charge sheet dt. 07.11.2015 are fully established. 18. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties and perused the record placed before me by the learned counsel of the respondents. 19. On the Charge No. 1; in which the petitioner was charged of having prepared and checked a voucher of a fresh cheque against stale cheque No. 55073 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- against Policy Number 440757109, it appears from the document of PW1 which is a cheque for Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the LICI that, it was signed by the petitioner, however, at the same time, it also appears from the document marked as D1, produced by the petitioner, which is an application signed by one Smti T. Dina nominee of a deceased policy holder that, the cheque earlier issued could not be withdrawn in time therefore, a request was made to the Branch Manager for making necessary arrangement to pay the amount favouring LICI for a new policy. It also appears from this document that the Branch Manager had noted approval for issue of a fresh cheque favouring LICI after proper verification. This means that, the Branch Manager was the first person approached by the nominee and, he had indicated his approval for issue of fresh cheque, in favour of LICI after proper verification. It also appears from this document that the Branch Manager had noted approval for issue of a fresh cheque favouring LICI after proper verification. This means that, the Branch Manager was the first person approached by the nominee and, he had indicated his approval for issue of fresh cheque, in favour of LICI after proper verification. Further, it also indicates that the application was processed through various departments and at different levels of the branch and only thereafter the request of the nominee was allowed. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner alone is responsible for the same appears to be not as per the evidence available. It may be true that the petitioner had signed the cheque but it was done only after proper scrutiny was done at different levels including the Branch Manager to whom the request was first made. Furthermore, there is no finding as to how the cheque amount was deposited for renewal premium of five policies. Therefore, this Court is of the view that if any loss has been caused to the LICI, the petitioner alone cannot be held responsible. He is only one in the long chain of administration in the branch office. 20. Zharge No. 2: On this charge also, as per the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the Presenting Officer produced the document marked as P2 which is nothing but a cheque of Rs. 15,000/-, purportedly signed in favour of LICI by the petitioner, to prove the charge and the petitioner produced the document marked as D8 which is nothing but a consent letter signed by one T. Sangtam, nominee of one Mr. C. Sangtam, which shows that he affirmed the fact that at his request fresh cheque was prepared in favour of LICI for re-investment but, due to financial constraint at home opening of new policy was kept in abeyance, and he had received the cheque amount being the payment against the policy. As such, he have no claim against the said cheque amount. The letter bears the name of the person who signed the consent letter but no date was given. The Presenting Officer rejected the consent letter since it did not bear any date and, since there was no sign of approval by the competent authority. As such, he have no claim against the said cheque amount. The letter bears the name of the person who signed the consent letter but no date was given. The Presenting Officer rejected the consent letter since it did not bear any date and, since there was no sign of approval by the competent authority. The Enquiry Officer in his finding stated that the cheque was prepared in favour of LICI but utilized against renewal of different premium of different policy holders. But nowhere in the findings, the evidence from which the findings were deduced is recorded and no where the names of the policy holders for whom the renewal premiums were paid are mention. The finding is scatchy and lacks basis. In fact, the consent letter did not bear any date but was processed at different levels before the cheque was signed as per the submission of the petitioner's learned counsel. In an office like LIC branch, no individual could have taken a decision without processing it through proper channel. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner processed the same all alone, signed the cheque and deposited towards renewal premium against four policies. Even if it was done no findings as to how it was done has been recorded. Therefore, I find no basis to upheld the findings and conclusions of the Enquiry Officer. 21. Charge No. 3: It appears from the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer that prosecution Officer had submitted documents, PW3 and P3(A) to prove the charge. It also appears that the petitioner submitted the document marked as D9 to prove that he validated and signed the cheque only after the voucher was duly approved by the competent authority. The document P3 is a voucher and the document P3(A) is the cheque for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- purportedly signed by the petitioner. The document marked D9 is signed by one Mr. A. Kath and in that it is stated that the payment against his approved policy bearing No. 442619437 was made at his request for opening a new policy but due to urgent financial problem at home he was compelled to change his decision, and he had already received the full value of the policy. A. Kath and in that it is stated that the payment against his approved policy bearing No. 442619437 was made at his request for opening a new policy but due to urgent financial problem at home he was compelled to change his decision, and he had already received the full value of the policy. It appears from the findings recorded that the document marked D9 was not accepted, as no amount was mentioned and as it did not bear the date and addressed of the declarant. It appears that after reading the same the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duty which resulted in violation of the established rules. To repeat the charge against the petitioner was that he signed a fresh cheque of Rs. 25,000/- against the stale Cheque No. 325347 of Rs. 73928 and refunded the balance amount to the party, and thereafter, he deposited the cheque towards loan repayment of Policy No. 441448688. The charge and finding recorded by the Presenting Officer does not appear to be connected at all. It is not possible to make out how the charges are concluded to have been proved. The findings are vague and the conclusion drawn is baseless. There is no clarity as to the identity of the person for whose loan repayment the sum of Rs. 25,000/- was used. He was not even produced as witness. Moreover if anyone suffered due to the act of the petitioner it should be Mr. Kath to whom the sum of Rs. 73928/- was given but there is no sign of his complaint. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no evidence or material proving that any loss has been suffered by him. Moreover, when the petitioner (Charge Officer) has claimed that he had signed the cheque only after the voucher was duly approved he should have been given the opportunity to prove the same. It appears from the proceedings that he was not given the opportunity to do so. No one can be punished before he is given a chance of being heard. None providing of sufficient opportunity to prove one's case would amount to denial of the right of being heard. Therefore, the findings and conclusion herein cannot be sustained. 22. It appears from the proceedings that he was not given the opportunity to do so. No one can be punished before he is given a chance of being heard. None providing of sufficient opportunity to prove one's case would amount to denial of the right of being heard. Therefore, the findings and conclusion herein cannot be sustained. 22. Charge No. 4: It is stated that the petitioner prepared, checked and validated the voucher for a fresh cheque against stale Cheque No. 174271 of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and he also signed on the fresh cheque in favour of LICI. It is also further stated that the cheque was deposited towards proposed deposit in favour of Y.C. Jamir against Policy No. 443506321. The Enquiry Officer recorded in his finding that, the Prosecution Officer submitted document marked P 4 and the petitioner produced document marked D 3 duly approved by the Branch manager. Thereafter he recorded that the petitioner admitted that he prepared, check and validated the voucher and also signed the cheque as authorized signatory. He then came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to keep any control over the cheque issued in favour of LICI as a result of which the cheque was wrongly utilized. On reading the findings and conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer, one is unable to make out how the petitioner failed to keep control of the cheque issued in favour of LICI as a result of which the cheque was wrongly utilized. The document marked as P-4 as per the record is a cheque of Rs. 10,000/- purportedly signed by the petitioner in favour of LICI and the document marked as D 3 is the request letter addressed to the Branch Manager LIC, Dimapur signed by one Ramakanta Aditya requesting for issuance of fresh cheque against the stale cheque No. 174279 dated 30/3/2005 favouring LICI for new policy. None of the 2 documents shows that the cheque was deposited in favour of Y.C. Jamir against policy No. 443506321 as charged. In fact the document marked D 3 shows that the Branch Manager had written on the margin that the account department should issue fresh cheque favouring LICI after proper verification. It appears from the document that the same was processed with endorsement of the Branch Manager and only thereafter, fresh cheque was issued. In fact the document marked D 3 shows that the Branch Manager had written on the margin that the account department should issue fresh cheque favouring LICI after proper verification. It appears from the document that the same was processed with endorsement of the Branch Manager and only thereafter, fresh cheque was issued. From all these, it is not possible to make out how the petitioner is guilty of the charge. As such, this Court is of the view that the charge is not proved. 23. Charge 5: The charge against the petitioner was that he prepared, checked and validated a voucher for fresh cheque in favour of LICI against the cheque No. 176337 of the amount of Rs. 75,000/- which was also signed by him and the cheque was deposited against new proposed policies being No. 443506709, 443506711, 443506713 and 443506714 and for payment of renewal premium Policy No. 443497033. The findings on this charge as recorded is that, the Prosecution Officer submitted document marked P 5 and the petitioner submitted document marked D-4 and D-10. It was also recorded that the petitioner admitted to have prepared and checked the voucher on receipt of consent letter duly approved by the Branch Manager. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter recorded his conclusion that the petitioner instead of ensuring proper utilization of the cheque in favour of LA he had shown an attitude of negligence. It is not possible to make out how the charge against the petitioner was proved. The document P5 produced by the Prosecution Officer is a cheque of Rs. 75,000/- purportedly signed by the petitioner. There is nothing in evidence to show that this is a stale cheque or fresh cheque and there is also no other document produced by the Prosecution Officer to show that the petitioner had signed a fresh cheque and deposited the same against the new policy numbers mentioned above and another policy number for renewal premium. The document D-10 is a request letter of one Ms. Aienla Ao requesting the branch for fresh payment of the amount of Rs. 75,000/- for which cheque was issued earlier but has become stale, due to non encashment of the same in time. On that application the Branch Manager noted that accounts department should issue fresh cheque favouring LICI (to be deposited only in favour of LA). Aienla Ao requesting the branch for fresh payment of the amount of Rs. 75,000/- for which cheque was issued earlier but has become stale, due to non encashment of the same in time. On that application the Branch Manager noted that accounts department should issue fresh cheque favouring LICI (to be deposited only in favour of LA). This document shows that the process for preparing voucher for issuance of fresh cheque for the amount mentioned above was initiated under the direction of the Branch Manager, LIC. The document marked as D 4 is a letter of Smti. Aienla Ao which states that she had received in cash a sum of Rs. 75,000/- from LIC, Dimapur Branch against her policy number 440543773. This document shows that fresh cheque was drawn in favour of Smti Aienla Ao and she had received the amount. There is no evidence to show that the amount was deposited towards new proposals and for payment of renewal premium of another policy. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer is without any basis or evidence. 24. Charge 6: The charge against the petitioner is that he had prepared, check and validitated a voucher for fresh cheque against stale cheque No. 313387 and the fresh cheque which was for a sum of Rs. 7,500/- was utilized for payment of renewal premium of policy No. 443494594, 443500192, 44201-4454 and 440542898. According to the Enquiry officer, the Prosecution officer submitted the document marked as P6 and the petitioner submitted document marked as D-5. He also recorded that the petitioner admitted to have prepared, checked and validated a voucher but only after it was duly approved by the Branch Manager with clear instruction to utilize the same in favour of LA only. He then went on to state that in spite of that the petitioner failed to exercise proper control over the cheque issued in favour of LICI which proved negligence of duty on his part. In his findings he recorded that negligence of duty on the part of the petitioner is proved therefore, the charge leveled is fully established. The document marked as P-6 is a cheque for a sum of Rs. 7500/- only purportedly signed by the petitioner. There is no other document to show that the cheque was stale cheque or fresh cheque. In his findings he recorded that negligence of duty on the part of the petitioner is proved therefore, the charge leveled is fully established. The document marked as P-6 is a cheque for a sum of Rs. 7500/- only purportedly signed by the petitioner. There is no other document to show that the cheque was stale cheque or fresh cheque. The document marked as D-5 is an application of one Girish Chabndra Talukdar requesting the Branch Manager, LIC Dimapur to issue a fresh cheque in favour of LICI which can be deposited for new policy since the cheque issued for the same amount issued earlier has become stale as it could not be encashed in time. On the same application the Branch Manager had directed that the cheque should be issued in favour of LIC after proper verification and make sure that the cheque is deposited against the LA only. There is no other document to show that a fresh cheque was issued and the same was utilized for payment of renewal premium on the policy numbers mentioned above. The Enquiry Officer has not also recorded anything to show the same. Therefore, I find nothing in record proving the charge against the petitioner. 25. Charge 7: The charge against the petitioner is that after he had prepared, checked and validitated a voucher for fresh payment against stale cheque No. 311272 of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- he had issued a fresh cheque in the name of one Chupathung though the voucher was prepared in the name of one Nirmal Dey. According to the Enquiry officer, the Prosecution Officer submitted the documents marked as P-7, P-13, P-16 and P-17 while the petitioner submitted document marked D-7. He also stated that as per the panel Advocate, the document P-13 and the document D-7 are not genuine. Thereafter, he went on to record that when the petitioner was asked whether he prepared, checked and validated the voucher in the name of Nirmal Dey but credited the cheque into the account of Chupathung, the petitioner refused to comment on the matter until and unless the original voucher is produced before him for verification. The Enquiry officer then recorded his finding that preparation of cheque in the name of another person in place of the payee's name clearly proves mala fide intention of the petitioner and held the petitioner guilty of the charge. The Enquiry officer then recorded his finding that preparation of cheque in the name of another person in place of the payee's name clearly proves mala fide intention of the petitioner and held the petitioner guilty of the charge. The document P-7 is a letter from the Branch Manager, Dimapur LIC Branch addressed to the Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank Dimapur Branch seeking information regarding 2 cheques issued by the branch (1) Cheque No. 537403 dated 29.1.2010 for the amount of Rs. 10,000/-; payee Chupathung (2) Cheque No. 537404 dated 29.01.2010 for the amount of Rs. 15,000/-; payee Jolly, and at the same time requesting for providing photo copy of the cheques and to inform as to whether cheque No. 537404 dated 29.01.2010 for the sum of Rs. 15,000/- was credited to account No. 810201011000387 of Ms. Jolly. The document marked as P-12 is the letter of the Manager (L & HPF) LIC, Jorhat Divisional office addressed to the Manager (P & IR) LIC Divisional office Jorhat stating that, with reference to his letter No. JDO/ENIR/2014-15 dated 21.11.2004 legal opinion from the empaneled Advocate Mr. H. Hazarika has been sought and his opinion has been received and the same is forwarded. The legal opinion of the Advocate expressed in the letter was that evidence submitted in the name of Jolly and Chupathung were without signatures therefore, they cannot be valid legally. The document P-17 and P-18 are vouchers which are not connected with the charge against the petitioner at all. The document marked as D-7 submitted by the petitioner is an affidavit purportedly sworn and affirmed by one Mr. Nirmal Dey @ Chupathung but without signatures. The document marked as P-16 is the status report of policy No. 440756779. None of the documents produced by the Prosecution Officer has shown that the petitioner prepared, checked and validated a voucher for payment against stale Cheque 311272 of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and, though the voucher was prepared in the name of one Nirmal Dey, the cheque was issued in the name of Chupathung. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are absurd and without any basis. Accordingly this charge No. 7 against the petitioner also fails. 26. Charge 8: The charge against the petitioner was that he prepared, checked and validated voucher for fresh payment against stale cheque No. 69009 but the voucher was prepared in the name of Ms. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are absurd and without any basis. Accordingly this charge No. 7 against the petitioner also fails. 26. Charge 8: The charge against the petitioner was that he prepared, checked and validated voucher for fresh payment against stale cheque No. 69009 but the voucher was prepared in the name of Ms. Jolly. The Enquiry Officer recorded that the Prosecution Officer submitted documents marked as P-7; P-12, P-13, P-18 and P-19 and the petitioner (Charge Officer) submitted document marked as D-6. Thereafter, he went on to state that the document marked as P-18 and P-19 reveals that the voucher was prepared in the name of Chuchangmeren whereas the cheque was credited into the account of Ms. Jolly. Thereafter, he went on to state that as per the panel Advocate of the Company the document marked as P-13 and D-6 were not genuine. He also stated that the petitioner refused to comment whether he had prepared and checked the voucher until the original documents are produced before him. In his finding supposedly based on what has been stated above the Enquiry Officer recorded that the charge leveled against the petitioner is fully established. The document marked as P-7 is a letter of the Branch Manager of LIC, Dimapur Branch requesting the Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank, Dimapur Branch to provide the photo copies of 2 cheques (1) Cheque No. 537403 dated 29.1.2010 of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- payee: Chupathung (2) Cheque No. 537404 dated 29.1.2010 of the amount of Rs. 15,000/- payee: Jolly and also requesting him to inform his office whether the 2nd cheque of Rs. 15,000/- was credited to Account Number 810201011000387. The document marked as P-12 is also a letter of the Manager (L & HPF) of LIC Jorhat Divisional office addressed to the Manager (P & IR), LIC Divisional office Jorhat informing the later that the empanelled Advocate has been consulted and his opinion has been received and the same is enclosed. The document marked as P-13 is the opinion of the empanelled Lawyer which states that the affidavit in the name of Chuchangmeren @ Jolly bears no signature of the deponent therefore, it cannot be recognized as legally valid documents. The document marked as P-13 is the opinion of the empanelled Lawyer which states that the affidavit in the name of Chuchangmeren @ Jolly bears no signature of the deponent therefore, it cannot be recognized as legally valid documents. The 2nd opinion of the em panelled Lawyer as stated in the same letter is that the affidavit in the name of Nirmal Dey @ Chupathung is also without signature therefore, the same also cannot be legally a valid document The document marked as P-18 appears to be a voucher in the name of Chuchangmeren for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- but the same bears no signature of anybody and there is no indication as to who prepared, checked and validated the cheque. The document marked as P-19 also appears to be a voucher in the name of Chuchangmeren Pon for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- but the same bears no signature of anybody and there is no indication as to who prepared the same. On perusal of documents marked as P-18 and P-19, one cannot conclude as to who prepared, checked and validated them. Therefore, the petitioner, was justified in asking the Enquiry Officer to produce the original documents to ascertain as to who prepared, checked and validated the same. Since there was no evidence establishing as to who prepared, checked and validate the 2 vouchers marked as P-18 and P-19, there is no basis to conclude that charge No. 8 is proved against the petitioner. 27. From the above discussions and conclusions drawn, this Court is of the view that the findings and conclusions drawn by the Enquiry officer are without any basis. Therefore, they cannot be sustained. Further, from the summary of the enquiry proceedings reproduced above and in the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer one thing which has prominently figured is that the petitioner (charged Officer) insisted for original documents of the documents submitted by the Prosecution Officer to prove the charges but the same was denied. In an enquiry like the one in question, to prove or refute effectively the charges, production of the original documents are certainly required for proper Verification and confirmation of the contents there of. Therefore, the charged Officer (the petitioner) should have been given the opportunity of verifying the original documents so that he could have fair chance of defending himself effectively. Therefore, the charged Officer (the petitioner) should have been given the opportunity of verifying the original documents so that he could have fair chance of defending himself effectively. It is true that strict rules of evidence and procedural laws would not apply in such enquiry proceedings but the basic principles of natural justice such as chance of being heard should not and cannot be ignored even in such proceedings. For denial of such right would amount to denial of fair chance of being heard or defence. Therefore, by having denied excess to original documents to the charged Officer (petitioner), the Enquiry Officer has vitiated the proceedings of the enquiry. As such, this Court has no choice but to quash and set aside the findings and conclusions of the Enquiry Officer and the actions taken against the petitioner in consequence of the same i.e. the dismissal order dated 12.1.2017 issued by the Sr. Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) of LICI, Jorhat Division Office. Further, since the very basis on which the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the appellate authority has been quashed and set aside the order of the appellate authority is also quashed and set aside. Furthermore, for the same reason, the order passed by the Chairman LIC dated 16/8/2017 on the Memorial submitted by the petitioner is also quashed and set aside. As in consequence, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date he was dismissed and pay him all his entitlements as per law applicable. He should also be refunded the amount realized from him. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.