JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner by way of this writ petition seeks to quash the order, dated 26.09.2019, passed by the respondents whereby he has been punished with dismissal from service making him ineligible further service and also the order passed in appeal February, 2020, whereby the appeal was rejected with consequential prayer to reinstate him in service with all benefits. 3. Brief facts which deserve to be noted are that a vigilance case was registered against the petitioner on 29th July, 2018, alleging of demand of bribe from a Block Teacher, he was arrested on 30th July, 2018, while receiving Rs.15,000/-as bribe. He was suspended with effect from 29th July, 2018. After the petitioner was granted bail, he submitted his joining on 24.12.2018. The petitioner was served with the charge sheet for initiating major penalty under Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules 2005’) vide charge memo dated 20th February, 2019. 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Education, Purnea Division, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry, who asked the petitioner to submit his explanation to the memo of charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.04.2019 denying charges of bribe and also demanded certain documents to submit his defence. The Presenting Officer in support of the charges placed before the Enquiry Officer the documents relating to the first information report whereafter the Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 31.05.2019 submitted enquiry report mentioning in columns about the charge, the reply of delinquent, the submission of the Presenting Officer and his conclusion. Charge no. 1 was found to be proved while charge no. 2 was left for decision to be taken at the higher level. 5. The Director on the basis of the enquiry report sought explanation from the petitioner and the petitioner objected to the enquiry report pointing out that there has been gross violation of the Rules 2005, no procedure was adopted, no evidence was recorded and no cross-examination was provided. It was also his case that no witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, vide his order, dated 26.09.2019, passed the impugned order of dismissal of service holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charges. 6. Appeal was preferred which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order, dated 18.10.2019. 7. It was also his case that no witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, vide his order, dated 26.09.2019, passed the impugned order of dismissal of service holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charges. 6. Appeal was preferred which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order, dated 18.10.2019. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had at the time of admission argued that the procedure adopted by the Regional Deputy Director, Education, was in complete violation of Rule 17 of the Rules 2005 and it was a case where no enquiry was conducted and the dismissal order therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. After perusing the enquiry report which was in a form of and did not mention any procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer, this Court asked the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Purnia Division, to remain present in the Court. On the next day it was revealed that the concerned officer had already attained superannuation. Whereafter, noticing that the enquiry report does not record any finding and there are no conclusions based on any finding, nor there is any discussion on the charges, this Court deemed appropriate to call the Chief Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries to take into consideration that if such procedure is adopted by all the State Department Officers it may result in administrative chaos. 9. The Chief Commissioner, Departmental Enquiry, has placed before this Court a Circular issued as an advisory to all the Departments laying down guidelines, method and manner in which the departmental enquiries are to be conducted. The Circular no. 665, dated 08.11.2022, issued by the Chief Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, addressed to all the Departments and other Officers was taken on record. The Chief Commissioner, Departmental Enquiry, has placed before this Court a Circular issued as an advisory to all the Departments laying down guidelines, method and manner in which the departmental enquiries are to be conducted. The Circular no. 665, dated 08.11.2022, issued by the Chief Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, addressed to all the Departments and other Officers was taken on record. It would be apposite to notice the Circular as dated 08.11.2022 issued by the Chief Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries : ^^fcgkj ljdkj eq[; tk¡p vk;qDr dk dk;kZy; lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk i=kad % eq-tk¡-vk-¼fo-dk-½ % 02@2022 665 fnukad % 08-11-2022 izs"kd] czts'k esgjks=k] Hkk-ç-ls eq[; tk¡p vk;qä lsok esa] lHkh foHkkx] lHkh foHkkxk/;{k] iqfyl egkfuns'kd] lHkh izeMyh; vk;qDr lHkh ftyk inkf/kdkjh fo"k; %& foHkkxh; tk¡p ds lapkyu inkf/kdkjh }kjk fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 2005 ds fu;e&17 dk iw.kZ vuqikyu lqfuf'pr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa A egk'k;] mi;qZä fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa nk;j ;kfpdk la[;k 9401@2020 Jh t; çdk'k ukjk;.k nkl cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk fnukad 20-10-2022 dks U;k;kns'k fn;k x;k gS] ftlesa dgk x;k gS fd lapkyu inkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 2005 ds fu;e & 17 dk iw.kZ vuqikyu ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA tcfd lapkyu inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ksa dk lapkyu fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 2005 ds fu;e&17 dk iw.kZ vuqikyu fd;k tkuk gSA lapkyu inkf/kdkjh dks fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 2005 ds fu;e&17 vuqlkj fofHkUu pj.kksa esa eq[;r% fuEu dkjZokbZ fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS A fu;e & 17 ¼6½ vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj tgk¡ tk¡p çkf/kdkj u gks] tk¡p çkf/kdkj dks fuEufyf[kr vfHkys[k vxzlkfjr djsxkA ¼1½ vkjksi dh enksa rFkk vopkj ;k dnkpkj ds ykaNuksa ds fooj.k dh ,d çfr] ¼2½ ljdkjh lsod }kjk lefiZr cpko dk fyf[kr vfHkdFku] ;fn dksbZ gks] dh ,d çfr] ¼3½ bl fu;e ds mi&fue ¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V lkf{k;ksa] ;fn dksbZ gks] ds vfHkdFku dh ,d çfr] ¼4½ bl fu;e ds mi&fue ¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V nLrkostksa dks ljdkjh lsod dks miyC/k djk;k tkuk lkfcr djus okyk lk{;] vkSj ¼5½ çLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh dh fu;qfä laca/kh vkns'k dh ,d çfr A fu;e&17 ¼8½ ljdkjh lsod viuh vksj ls ekeyk çLrqr djus ds fy,] vius eq[;ky; esa ;k tgk¡ tk¡p dh tk jgh gks ml LFkku ij] fdlh dk;kZy; esa inLFkkfir vU; ljdkjh lsod dh lgk;rk ys ldsxkA ijUrq fd bl ç;kstukFkZ fdlh fof/k&Oolk;h dks rc rd ugha j[k ldsxk] tcrd fd vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj }kjk fu;qä çLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh dksbZ fof/k O;olk;h u gks vFkok ekeys dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk /;ku j[krs gq,] vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj ,slh vuqefr u ns] lkFk gh lkFk ljdkjh lsod fdlh ,sls vU; ljdkjh lsod dh lgk;rk ugha ys ldsxk ftlds ikl ,sls rhu yfEcr vuq'kklfud ekeys gksa ftuesa mUgsa lgk;rk nsuh gksA fu;e & 17 ¼9½ ;fn ljdkjh lsod] ftlus vius cpko ds fyf[kr vfHkdFku esa vkjksi ds fdlh en dks Lohdkj u fd;k gks ;k cpko esa dksbZ fyf[kr vfHkdFku çLrqr u fd;k gks] tk¡p çkf/kdkj ds le{k mifLFkr gksrk gS rks og çkf/kdkj mlls iwNsxk fd og nks"kh gS ;k ugha vFkok vius cpko ds fy;s mls dqN dguk gS ;k ugha vkSj ;fn og vkjksi ds fdlh en dk nks"kh gksus dk vfHkopu djrk gks rks tk¡p çkf/kdkj ml vfHkopu dks vfHkfyf[kr djsxk] vfHkys[k ij gLrk{kj djsxk rFkk ml ij ljdkjh lsod ls gLrk{kj djk ysxk A fu;e&17¼10½ vkjksi ds ftu enksa ds laca/k esa ljdkjh lsod us nks"kh gksus dk vfHkopu fd;k gks tk¡p çkf/kdkj mu nks"kksa ij viuk fu"d"kZ okil dj nsxkA fu;e&17 ¼11½ ;fn ljdkjh lsod] fofufnZ"V le; ds Hkhrj mifLFkr gksus esa foQy gks vFkok vfHkopu ls bUdkj djrk gks ;k vfHkopu ugha djrk gks] rks tk¡p çkf/kdkj] çLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh ls vis{kk djsxk fd og ml lk{;ksa dks çLrqr djs] ftuds }kjk vkjksi dh enksa dks og lkfcr djuk pkgrk gks A mHk; i{k dh mifLFkfr jgus ij tk¡p çkf/kdkj }kjk mHk; i{k dks viuh vksj ls ijh{k.k fd;s tkus okys lkf{k;ksa dh lwph çLrqr fd;s tkus gsrq funZs'k fn;k tk ldrk gSA lkFk gh lkFk ljdkjh lsod bl fu;e ds mi&fue ¼3½ esa lwph esa fofufnZ"V nLrkostksa dk fujh{k.k dj ldrk gSA ljdkjh lsod fdlh nLrkost dh [kkst djus ;k is'k djus dh uksfVl ns ldsxk tks ljdkj ds ikl gks] fdUrq bl fu;e ds mi&fue ¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V lwph esa mfYyf[kr u gksA fu;e&17¼12½ ljdkjh lsod }kjk nLrkost@dkxtkr dh ekax ls lacaf/kr vkosnu çkIr gks tkus ij tk¡p inkf/kdkjh }kjk ml çkf/kdkj dks vkosnu vxzlkfjr dj nsxk ftldh vfHkj{kk ;k dCts esa nLrkost j[ks x;s gksA ijUrq tk¡p çkf/kdkj ,sls nLrkostksa dh v/;is{kk dks vLohdkj dj ldsxk ftUgsa og ekeys ds fy, vçlkafxd le>sA fu;e&17 ¼13½ bl fu;e ds mi&fue ¼12½ esa fofufnZ"V v/;is{kk çkIr gksus ij] v/;isf{kr nLrkostksa dks vfHkj{kk ;k dCtk esa j[kusokyk gjsd çkf/kdkj mUgsa tk¡p çkf/kdkj ds le{k is'k djsxkA ijUrq ,sls nLrkost ftls is'k djuk yksdfgr ;k jkT; dh lqj{kk ds fo:) gksxk rks os çkf/kdkj ftuds vfHkj{kk esa nLrkost gSa os tk¡p çkf/kdkj dks lwfpr djsaxs vkSj tk¡p çkf/kdkj ;g tkudkjh ljdkjh lsod dks lalwfpr djsaxs A fu;e & 17 ¼14½ xokgh dh çfØ;k dh tkuh gSA vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj }kjk fn;s x;s xokg dk ijh{k.k çLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh }kjk fd;k tk;sxk ,oa ljdkjh lsod }kjk xokg dk çfrijh{k.k fd;k tk;sxk A çLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh mu fcUnqvksa ij lkf{k;ksa dk iquiZjh{k.k djus dk gdnkj gksxk ftu ij mudk çfrijh{k.k fd;k x;k gks] fdUrq tk¡p çkf/kdkj dh vuqefr ds fcuk fdlh u;s fo"k; ij çfrijh{k.k ugha djsxkA tk¡p çkf/kdkj Hkh lk{kh ls ,sls ç'u iwN ldsxk ftls og mfpr le>s A fu;e & 17 ¼15½ vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj dh vksj ls ekeyk cUn fd;s tkus ds iwoZ ;fn vko';d çrhr gks rks tk¡p çkf/kdkj Lofoosd ls çLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh dks ,slk lk{; çLrqr djus dh vuqefr ns ldsxk tks ljdkjh lsod dks nh x;h lwph esa lfEefyr u gks ;k Lo;a u;s lk{;ksa dh ek¡x dj ldsxk vFkok fdlh lk{kh dks iqu% cqykdj mldk iquiZjh{k.k dj ldsxk vkSj ,slh n'kk esa ljdkjh lsod] ;fn ek¡x djs] rks is'k fd;s tkus ds fy, çLrkfor vfrfjä lk{;ksa dh lwph ysus rFkk ,sls u;s lk{;ksa dks is'k djus ds iwoZ iwjs rhu fnuksa ds fy, tk¡p dk LFkxu ysus dk gdnkj gksxkA tk¡p çkf/kdkj ljdkjh lsod dks Hkh u;s lk{; çLrqr djus dh vuqefr ns ldsxk ;fn mldh ;g jk; cus fd U;k; ds fgr esa ,sls lk{;ksa dks is'k djuk vko';d gSA ijUrq ;g fd lk{; dh vuqiwfrZ ds fy;s u;k lk{; nsus ;k ek¡xus ;k fdlh lk{kh dks fQj cqykus dh vuqefr ugha nh tk;sxhA ,sls lk{; dh ek¡x rHkh dh tk ldsxh tc ewyr% is'k fd;s x;s lk{; esa dksbZ vUrfuZfgr deh ;k nks"k gks A fu;e&17 ¼16½ tk¡p çkf/kdkj ljdkjh lsod ls vis{kk dh tk;sxh fd og ekSf[kd ;k fyf[kr] tSlk og ilan djs] vius çfrokn dk vfHkdFku djsA ;fn çfrokn ekSf[kd :i ls fd;k tk; rks mls vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tk;sxk vkSj ljdkjh lsod ls vfHkys[k ij gLrk{kj djus dh vis{kk dh tk;sxhA nksuksa gh n'kkvksa esa çfrokn vfHkdFku dh çfr fu;qä çLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks nh tk;sxh A fu;e & 17 ¼17½ ljdkjh lsod dh vksj ls viuk lk{; is'k dj ldrs gSaA ljdkjh lsod ;fn pkgs] rks viuh vksj ls Lo;a ijh{k.k dj ldrs gSaA mlds ckn ljdkjh lsod }kjk is'k fd;s x;s lkf{k;ksa dks ijh{k.k ,oa çfrijh{k.k dh çfØ;k dh tk;sxhA fu;e&17 ¼18½ ljdkjh lsod }kjk viuk ekeyk cUn fd;s tkus ds i'pkr] tk¡p çkf/kdkj] ljdkjh lsod ds fo:) lk{; esa fn[kus okyh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds laca/k esa mldh fLFkfr Li"V djus ds ç;kstukFkZ mlls lkekU; iwNrkN djsaxsaA fu;e& 17 ¼19½ lHkh lk{;ksa dks is'k fd;k tkuk iwjk gks tkus ds mijkUr tk¡p çkf/kdkj çLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh vkSj ljdkjh lsod dks foLr`r :i ls vkjksiokj lqusaxs ,oa mHk; i{k pkgsa rks mUgsa vius&vius ekeys dk fyf[kr i{k dFku (Written briefs) nkf[ky djus dh vuqefr nsaxsA fu;e&17 ¼20½ ljdkjh lsod ftls vkjksi dh enksa dh ,d çfr nh x;h gks] cpko dk fyf[kr vfHkdFku] bl ç;kstukFkZ fofufnZ"V frfFk dks ;k mlls iwoZ is'k u djs vFkok tk¡p çkf/kdkj ds le{k Lo;a mifLFkr u gks vFkok bl fu;e ds mica/kksa dk vuqikyu djus esa vU;Fkk foQy jgs ;k vLohdkj djs rks tk¡p çkf/kdkj ,d i{kh; tk¡p djsaxsA fu;e&17 ¼23½ ¼1½ tk¡p dh lekfIr ds i'pkr tk¡p çfrosnu esa fuEufyf[kr vUrfoZ"V gksus pkfg,& ¼d½ vkjksi i= A ¼[k½ çR;sd vkjksi ds en ds laca/k vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod dk çfroknA ¼x½ çR;sd vkjksi ds en ds laca/k esa lk{; dk fu/kkZj.k A ¼?k½ çR;sd vkjksi ds en ij fu"d"kZ vkSj mlds dkj.ka foHkkxh; dkjZokbZ ls lacaf/kr vafre tk¡p çfrosnu ys[kkfir djus gsrq e‚My çk:i fuEu gSa& 1- vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod dk uke 2- foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la[;k 3- ljdkjh lsod dk inuke 4- ç'kklh foHkkx dh ladYi la[;k ,oa fnukad 5- lkekU; jsQjsal 6- vkjksi dk vfHkdFku 7- vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod dk cpko dk fyf[kr vfHkdFku 8- cpko esa fyf[kr vfHkdFku ij foHkkxh earO; ¼foHkkxh; eUrO; ls rkRi;Z ;g gS fd foHkkx }kjk vkjksi&i= ij vkjksih ljdkjh lsod }kjk lefiZr cpko c;ku@Li"Vhdj.k dks D;ksa Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha ik;k x;k gS vkSj D;ksa vkjksiksa dh leqfpr@foLr`r tk¡p gsrq foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk lapkyu fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA½ 9- foHkkxh; earO; ij vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod dh fyf[kr çfrfØ;k 10- lk{;@lk{kh@xokgh ¼vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj@vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh }kjk ;fn lk{; ds :i esa fn;k x;k gks rks½@ijh{k.k@çfrijh{k.k@iquiZjh{k.k 11- mHk; i{k }kjk fn;s x;s fyf[kr i{k dFku 12- lquokbZ 13- fo'ys"k.k ,oa tk¡p ifj.kke 14- vafre fu"d"kZ vr% mä ds vkyksd esa dguk gS fd foHkkxh; tk¡p ds lapkyu gsrq fu;qä lapkyu inkf/kdkjh foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ksa ls lacaf/kr lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx ls fuxZr ifji=ksa ,oa vuqns'kksa dk iw.kZ vuqikyu djrs gq, fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 2005 ds fu;e&17 dk iw.kZ vuqikyu djuk lqfuf'pr djsa rkfd Åij vafdr e‚My çk:i ds vuqlkj gh tk¡p çfrosnu ç'kklh foHkkx dks lefiZr gksA mijksä lHkh dks funs'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os vius Lrj ls fu;qä fd;s x;s lHkh tk¡p inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks bl i= ls voxr djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaxs rkfd foHkkxh; tk¡p esa ,d:irk cuh jgs ,oa tk¡p fu;ekuqdwy gks ldsA fo'oklHkktu g0@& vLi"V 8@11@2022 ¼czts'k esgjks=k½ ^^eq[; tk¡p vk;qDr** 10. This Court is satisfied that the above guidelines shall be able to streamline the Departmental proceedings and bring transparency and fair play. 11. Having noticed above, a look at the departmental enquiry proceedings in the present case reflects that the same is not in consonance with the aforesaid provisions as highlighted by the Commissioner. The scope of interference in enquiry matters is limited and minimal. 12. In the case of Union of India & Ors. Vrs. P. Gunashekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 , the Supreme Court held as under : “12 : Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13 : Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 13. From above, it is apparent that this Court would only examine into the decision making process and not the decision itself in departmental enquiry. The Constitutional Bench in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors. reported in 1964 SC 477 held as under:- 7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or properly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity, be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [ (1955) 1 SCR 1104 ] Nagandra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam [(1958) SCR 1240] and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh [ AIR 1960 SC 1168 ] 14. In Roop Singh Negi Vrs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 , the Apex Court held as under : “14. 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. 23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Actmay not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.” 15. In S.P. Malhotra Vrs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2013) 7 SCC 251 the Apex Court held that departmental enquiry is in the nature of quasi judicial function and, therefore, the statutory procedural provision are mandatory in nature and required to be followed strictly, which is as under : “7 : The appellant challenged the said orders of punishment by filing Writ Petition No. 1201 of 1988 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The said writ petition was contested by the respondent Bank. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 20-5-2011 [S.P. Malhotra v. Punjab National Bank, Civil Writ Petition No. 1201 of 1988, decided on 20-5-2011 (P&H)], holding that in case the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, he must record reasons for the disagreement and communicate the same to the delinquent seeking his explanation and after considering the same, the punishment could be passed. In the instant case, as such a course had not been resorted to, the punishment order stood vitiated.” 16. In the instant case, as such a course had not been resorted to, the punishment order stood vitiated.” 16. The gravamen of the aforesaid discussion is that the principles of natural justice and fair play have been imbibed in the Rules framed for conducting departmental enquiry. The same reflects the ethos laid down under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is necessary that enquiry conducted against a delinquent ought to be mandatorily in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules. 17. Having noticed that the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is not in terms with the provisions with the Rules of 2005, therefore, can not be relied upon for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and, therefore, the same is held to be unsustainable in law. The punishment order and the appellate order would therefore have to go. 18. However, this Court finds that the charges are very serious in nature and the enquiry as envisaged under Rules 17 of the Rules 2005 requires to be done in a fair and proper manner. 19. The enquiry officer has not recorded any evidence nor given any findings. He has merely quoted the grounds of charges and held them proved as vigilance has registered case against the petitioner even the I.O. was not called in evidence. Thus, it is a case of no enquiry. In Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors, as reported in 1999 (2) SCC 10 , the Supreme Court held as under:- 27. This Rule which lays down the procedure to be followed in the departmental enquiry itself postulates examination of all the witnesses in the presence of the accused who is also to be given an opportunity to cross-examine them. In case, the presence of any witness cannot be procured without undue delay, inconvenience or expense, his previous statement could be brought on record subject to the condition that the previous statement was recorded and attested by a police officer superior in rank than the delinquent. If such statement was recorded by the Magistrate and attested by him, then also it could be brought on record. The further requirement is that the statement either should have been signed by the person concerned, namely, the person who has made that statement, or it was recorded during an investigation or a judicial enquiry or trial. If such statement was recorded by the Magistrate and attested by him, then also it could be brought on record. The further requirement is that the statement either should have been signed by the person concerned, namely, the person who has made that statement, or it was recorded during an investigation or a judicial enquiry or trial. The Rule further provides that unsigned statement shall be brought on record only through the process of examining the officer or the Magistrate who had earlier recorded the statement of the witness whose presence could not be procured. 28. Rule 16(3) is almost akin to Sections 32 and 33 of the Evidence Act. Before the Rule can be invoked, the factors enumerated therein, namely, that the presence of the witness cannot be procured without undue delay, inconvenience or expense, have to be found to be existing as they constitute the “condition precedent” for the exercise of jurisdiction for this purpose. In the absence of these factors, the jurisdiction under Rule 16(3) cannot be exercised. 32. Apart from the above, Rule 16(3) has to be considered in the light of the provisions contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution to find out whether it purports to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the delinquent. Reasonable opportunity contemplated by Article 311(2) means “hearing” in accordance with the principles of natural justice under which one of the basic requirements is that all the witnesses in the departmental enquiry shall be examined in the presence of the delinquent who shall be given an opportunity to cross-examine them. Where a statement previously made by a witness, either during the course of preliminary enquiry or investigation, is proposed to be brought on record in the departmental proceedings, the law as laid down by this Court is that a copy of that statement should first be supplied to the delinquent who should thereafter be given an opportunity to cross-examine that witness. 42. The enquiry officer did not sit with an open mind to hold an impartial domestic enquiry which is an essential component of the principles of natural justice as also that of “reasonable opportunity”, contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The “bias” in favour of the Department had so badly affected the enquiry officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. The “bias” in favour of the Department had so badly affected the enquiry officer's whole faculty of reasoning that even non-production of the complainants was ascribed to the appellant which squarely was the fault of the Department. Once the Department knew that the labourers were employed somewhere in Devli Khanpur, their presence could have been procured and they could have been produced before the enquiry officer to prove the charge framed against the appellant. He has acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has found the appellant guilty in such a coarse manner that it becomes apparent that he was merely carrying out the command from some superior officer who perhaps directed “fix him up”. 20. Accordingly, the orders dated 26.09.2019 and dated 31.05.2019 are quashed and set aside. The order passed by the Director, dated 26.09.2019, dismissing the petitioner from service is set aside. The petitioner, who is under suspension, will draw subsistence allowance. 21. The respondents are directed to conduct the enquiry afresh keeping in view the provisions of Rule 17 of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, as well as the Circular issued by the Chief Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, dated 18.08.2011, and conclude the enquiry within a period of 4 months. The petitioner is expected to cooperate, failing which the concerned enquiry officer shall be free to conclude the enquiry ex-parte also. The disciplinary authority shall pass necessary orders accordingly. The petitioner if aggrieved shall be always free to challenge the same at appropriate forum. If the petitioner has retired in the meanwhile, the State Government shall pass order under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules to continue the enquiry in terms of the charges, dated 20.02.2019. 22. The writ petition is allowed to aforesaid extent. No costs.