ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The appellant, who was the writ petitioner, faced the charge of misconduct with eight other co-workers under various clauses of the Certified Standing Order of the company. By an order dated 23rd February 2006, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The disciplinary authority further debarred the appellant from posting at sensitive places for the next six years. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by him and a communication in this regard was made to him vide letter dated 19th March 2016. 2. The challenge by the appellant to the aforesaid order of punishment was not accepted by the writ Court and W.P(S) No.3131 of 2010 was dismissed on 12th December 2018 with the following observations : “9. Since the charges have been found to be established, petitioner has been imposed with the impugned punishment, which do not appear to be disproportionate or excessive to shock the conscience of the Court. Considered thus, no grounds are made out for interference in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” 3. Two-fold submissions are raised by Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel for the appellant; (i) the departmental enquiry against the appellant was conducted in violation of the rules of natural justice, and (ii) the enquiring officer proceeded in the matter illegally and submitted a cryptic report which cannot form the basis for punishment. 4. During inspection of Weigh Bridge under Central Coalfields Limited (in short, CCL) by the Vigilance Team (Headquarters) at Makoli variations were observed in “tare weight” of 36 trucks. Nine persons including the appellant who were posted at SDQ 3 Project were proceeded against in a departmental enquiry. 5. The charge-memo served upon the appellant on 18th October 2004 reads as under : “That on 28.05.2003 during surprise inspection of Makoli Weighbridge by HQ Vigilance Team, variations in tare weights of 36 trucks were observed which amounts gross negligence of work & constituted misconduct for fraud or dishonesty in connection with employer’s business”. 6. The appellant submitted his explanation putting up the following defence : “1. That there is system to rotate M/s personnels in shift i.e., in 1st and 2nd shift to carry out weightment of empty and loaded trucks of road sale etc. 2. 6. The appellant submitted his explanation putting up the following defence : “1. That there is system to rotate M/s personnels in shift i.e., in 1st and 2nd shift to carry out weightment of empty and loaded trucks of road sale etc. 2. That there is system prevailing to check the trucks attending weighbridge for tare and gross weightment by security personnel posted at W.B. by competent authority of the project as well Area Security Officer, Dhori Area frequently check the weightment attending W.B. himself. That W.B. Staff in duty after getting satisfactory report about the trucks placed on weighing plate from security posted at W.B. in each shift punches card of empty and loaded trucks and gets counter signature of Security personnels in each and every truck's weight. 3. That there is neither fix tare is available in respect of any road sale trucks at weighbridge to verify variation nor any system has been evolved so far by the management till now. 4. That frequent checks by colliery authority is also being conducted in both shift and reweightment of trucks were being done for satisfaction and there is nothing irregular pointed out. 5. That verification of tare pointed out by HQ Vigilance team against different trucks on different dates is not due to my negligence which may kindly be convinced. 6. Variation in tare weight of trucks on different period due to any reason i.e. filling of diesel tank in full, repairing, modification in body by adding extra wooden/iron materials and providing essential tools etc. Goes with trucks owners who is wholly responsible for his vehicles/trucks engaged for coal loading.” 7. Under clause 28 of the Certified Standing Order which provides procedure for conduct of disciplinary enquiry and imposition of penalty upon the charged employee, an enquiry shall be held against the workman who denied the allegations against him and the concerned workman shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of defending himself. It appears that on 25th/26th October 2004 the enquiring officer examined six delinquent co-workers including the appellant who denied the charges levelled against them by CCL. The proceeding dated 25th/26th October 2004, which has been brought on record through supplementary affidavit dated 22nd November 2019, reveals that after taking statement of the delinquent workers the enquiring officer held that the disciplinary proceeding against them shall continue as they had denied the charges. Mr. The proceeding dated 25th/26th October 2004, which has been brought on record through supplementary affidavit dated 22nd November 2019, reveals that after taking statement of the delinquent workers the enquiring officer held that the disciplinary proceeding against them shall continue as they had denied the charges. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for CCL submits that the enquiry continued on several dates and an enquiry report holding the charge against the appellant proved was submitted. 8. The enquiry report dated 23rd May 2005 is one-page report which is reproduced herein below : Central Coalfields Limited Office of the Chief General Manager, Dhori Area, PO: Dhori, Dist: Bokaro No. CGM(D)/SO(P&P)/Enquiry/05/779 Dated:23.05.2005 To The Project Officer, Sol., Dhori Q No.3 Sub: Enquiry report Dear Sir, Reference to office order no. SOQ03/PO/OO/2004/2154-57 dated 25/26.10.04 of Sri A.K. Khan, SO(P&P), appointed as enquiry officer against the chare sheets vide no. SDQ-3/PO/D. Action/04/2134-2137 against Sri Maheshwar Singh, LBC/MIK SOQ-2, Sri Beli Ran Singh, Munshi, SDQ-3 Sri Chandeshwar Singh LDC, SDQ-3, Sri Sitaram Mahato, LDC, SDQ-3 and reference to Office order no. SDQ-3/PO/00/05/2189-2203 dated 08.08.05 of Sri A.K.Khan, SO (P&P) appointed as enquiry officer against the charge sheets vide no. SDQ-3/PC/D.Action/2005/3162-3166 dated 20.01.2005 against Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Munshi, SDQ-3 Sri Nehre Kumar Singh, LDC, SDQ-3, Sri Meuji Mahto, LDC, SDQ-3, Sri Dhandeshwar Singh, Munshi, SDQ-3, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, LDC, SDQ-3. The findings of enquiry for above is as follows:- 1. At Makoli Weigh Bridge on surprise check by vigilance team from CCL, Hqtrs. On 28.05.03 for tare weight of 53 trucks for the last six months was analysed and found variation of fare weight of 36 trucks. The maximum variation is 560 kg and minimum variation is 60 kg. 2. There were no designate weigh bridge clerks working at Makoli weigh bridge at that time and all the above 9 (Nine) persons working in weigh bridge on rotation as per duty, roster and deals the truck sales department. 3. On enquiry and cross examination to the accused above, persons in presence of their co-worker none divided for no variation of fare weight and agreed that there is variation in fare weight of above 36 trucks during above period with strong following reasons (a) Different quantity of filling of fuel and water at different time. (b) Different whether condition i.e. dry truck and wet truck due to climate. (b) Different whether condition i.e. dry truck and wet truck due to climate. (c) Repair of trucks at different times etc. However loading of extraneous materials like iron, stone, tarpeli etc. during fare weight cannot be ruled out to increase the fare weight. 4. The examination of records, Registers and weight card, reveals that variation of fare weight happened for the 36 trucks against which the charge sheets issued. 5. The explanation/Reply of charge sheets also agreed for happening of variation of fare weight of the 36 trucks irrespective of cause of same. Hence finally the charge lebelled against the accused is truck by it self by the documents and proved for variation of fare weight of the 36 trucks out of 53 trucks examined. Thanking you, Yours faithfully Sd/- Illegible (A.K. Khan) Staff Officer (P&P) (D) Dhori Area Copy for information to: 1. The CGM, Dhori Area 9. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for CCL submits that there is sufficient indication in the enquiry report that the enquiring officer examined the records and considered the defence put forth by the appellant and, therefore, no interference is required in the matter by this Court. 10. A departmental enquiry must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the rules framed by the employer. It is basic in service jurisprudence that a copy of the document on which the employer seeks reliance should be provided to the delinquent employee and only in exceptional cases where it is not possible to supply copies of the documents the delinquent employee is offered an opportunity to examine/peruse the records. On a bare glance at the enquiry report dated 23rd May 2005 it does not appear which documents were verified/scrutinized by the enquiring officer, leaving aside an opportunity offered to the appellant to have access to those documents so that he could have prepared his defence. The so-called examination of the records by the enquiring officer shall remain in the realm of speculation and cannot attach sanctity to the enquiry report dated 23rd May 2005. 11. In “Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.” (2006) 4 SCC 713 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “44. The Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge suffers from several infirmities. 11. In “Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.” (2006) 4 SCC 713 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “44. The Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge suffers from several infirmities. He had observed that “the disadvantages of an employer as such acts are committed in secrecy and in conspiracy with the person affected by the accident”. No such finding has been arrived at even in the disciplinary proceedings nor any charge made out as against the appellant in that behalf. He had no occasion to have his say thereupon. Indisputably, the writ court will bear in mind the distinction between some evidence or no evidence but the question which was required to be posed and necessary should have been as to whether some evidence adduced would lead to the conclusion as regard the guilt of the delinquent officer or not. The evidence adduced on behalf of the management must have nexus with the charges. The enquiry officer cannot base his findings on mere hypothesis. Mere ipso dixit on his part cannot be a substitute of evidence.” 12. The enquiring officer who discharges a quasi-judicial function is under a duty to record a finding on preponderance of probability and while doing so he cannot ignore the defence put forth by the delinquent employee. The materials produced by CCL in the departmental enquiry against the appellant do not provide any answer to the defence put forth by the appellant. The enquiry report dated 23rd May 2005 which is one-page report is so cryptic that it does not deal with any of the issues raised by the appellant. In his explanation to the charges, the appellant pleaded that (a) different employees were posted on rotation basis to record empty and loaded trucks' weight (b) no standard “tare weight” is provided for comparison (c) variation in weight may occur due to diesel in fuel tank, repair and modification in trucks and for several other reasons. He further pleaded that periodic checks are conducted and weights of the empty and loaded trucks are countersigned by the security personnel. He further pleaded that periodic checks are conducted and weights of the empty and loaded trucks are countersigned by the security personnel. The specific stand of the appellant is that over a period of time no complaint was made and observation of Vigilance Team on 28th May 2003 as regards variation in “tare weight” of 36 trucks was not on account of any act of negligence, fraud or dishonesty on his part. It further appears that in a common enquiry all nine persons who were posted at Makoli Weigh Bridge were charged with the same and similar misconduct. However, the enquiry report is completely silent on the individual role played by the appellant and other co-workers. This is also not explained by CCL why for the alleged misconduct committed on 28th May 2003 a charge-memo was served on 18th October 2004 after a delay of about 17 months. Furthermore, we find that the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are not supported by any reason though serious civil consequences have followed to the appellant by their orders. 13. However, the writ Court observing that since the findings are based on material evidence the writ Court cannot exercise powers like appellate body came to a conclusion that no interference was warranted in the matter. What makes the writ Court's order unsustainable is the fact that the writ Court failed to appreciate that the entire departmental proceeding stood vitiated on account of procedural illegality and impropriety, and on the top of this all the cryptic enquiry report. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority also did not apply their mind to adherence to the principles of natural justice and recorded their concurrence with the enquiry report mechanically. No doubt the powers of judicial review of the writ Court are very limited and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao” (1975) 2 SCC 557 the writ Court is not constituted as a Court of appeal, but, in a situation like the present one the Court would not remain a mute spectator of the spectacles of violation of the rights of the employee flowing to him from the Certified Standing Orders and the rules of natural justice. Under the Certified Standing Orders of the company there is elaborate procedure laid down for conduct of domestic enquiry. Under the Certified Standing Orders of the company there is elaborate procedure laid down for conduct of domestic enquiry. Different procedural safeguards as contained in clauses 28.1, 28.2, 28.3, 28.6, 28.7, 28.8 and 28.10 have been provided for the delinquent employee, but, in the present case, those protections were not afforded to the appellant. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to accord our concurrence to the writ Court's order dated 12th December 2018. 15. The punishment order dated 23rd February 2006 which was approved by the appellate order dated 19th March 2016 is set-aside and, consequently, W.P.(S) No.3131 of 2010 is allowed. 16. L.P.A. No.56 of 2019 is allowed.