ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging legality and propriety of the order dated 20.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Mahasamund (C.G.) by which services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of misconduct of causing loss to the vehicle on account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner’s husband. 2. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner-Arun Kumar Banjare expired, therefore, his wife namely Sandhya Joshi Banjare was arrayed as party to the case vide this Court's order dated 24.08.2022. 3. On account of the accident on 24.01.2017 a show cause notice was issued. The deceased employee submitted reply to the show cause notice denying the allegation made against him contending that the incident took place on 24.01.2017 at about 9 O'clock, as all of a sudden, he faced dizziness, which caused accident. This was not happened because of his negligence or rash driving. The reply submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, therefore, the Collector Mahasamund directed for enquiry and charge sheet dated 29.04.2017 was issued to him, in which, following charges were levelled: ^^vkjksi Øekad ¼1½ vkids }kjk fnukad 24-01-2017 dks egkleqan uxj ds Hkhrj cjkS.Mk pkSd ds lehi tkucw>dj ykijokghiwoZd okgu Øekad lhŒthŒ 02&2617 ¼ek'kZy½ pykdj bjknru vf/kdkfj;ksa dks pksfVy djus nq?kZVukxzLr dh x;h ftlds QyLo:i rhu O;fDr;ksa dks pksV igqaph ftuesa ls ,d dk gkFk QsDpj gqvk rFkk okgu dh VwV&QwV ls 'kklu dks jkf'k 13]800@& :i;s {kfr igqapkbZ x;hA ¼2½ vkidk mDr d`R; NRrhlxढ+ flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e] 1968 ds fu;e 3 ds vuq:i u gksdj drZO; ds Áfr xaHkhj ykijokgh ,oa vuq'kklughurk dk Li"V |ksrd gSA vr% vki mDr fu;eksa dk ikyu u dj vius dk;Z ds Áfr drZO; ijk;.k ,oa lfu"B ugha jgrs gq, vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh ds Hkkxh cu x, gSA** 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Enquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the entire evidence brought on record. The report has been submitted on the basis of evidence adduced by the respondents and even no reason has been assigned to disbelieve the statement of the delinquent employee, therefore, there is complete violation of Principle of Natural Justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Enquiry Officer has exceeded jurisdiction by proposing punishment of penal action to be taken against deceased employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Enquiry Officer has exceeded jurisdiction by proposing punishment of penal action to be taken against deceased employee. He would further submit that the Enquiry Officer has only relied upon the evidence brought by the prosecution witnesses and has not given any consideration to the statement of the deceased employee. He would further submit that the Enquiry Officer has ignored vital evidence brought on record, therefore, based on non-consideration of material on record, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to proving of the charges suffers from perversity, illegality which deserve to be interfered by this Court. He would further submit that punishment imposed upon the deceased employee was disproportionate and even if it is held that the petitioner was negligent towards discharging his duties, still, the punishment imposed upon the deceased employee is harsh. He would further submit that the Doctor has not been examined during the enquiry proceedings or any material has been brought on record, still it has been recorded that the deceased employee was not suffering from epilepsy, is incorrect and perverse finding. Thus, the enquiry report is perverse, based on non-consideration of material evidence, as such, the same is liable to be quashed and on the basis of perverse enquiry report and non-compliance of the principle of natural justice in the enquiry proceedings, the punishment order deserves to be set aside by this Court. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has not given any opportunity to the deceased employee to engage the defence assistant, therefore, also the enquiry proceeding is bad in law. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the enquiry has been conducted strictly in accordance with the principle of natural justice. The petitioner was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, but he has chosen not to cross-examine, therefore, on the basis of evidence brought on record, the Enquiry Officer has submitted enquiry report, in which, the charges levelled against the deceased employee was found proved. She would further submit that punishment imposed upon the deceased employee on the basis of misconduct, is legal and justified and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. She would further submit that punishment imposed upon the deceased employee on the basis of misconduct, is legal and justified and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 24.04.2023, this Court directed the State to place on record the documents related to departmental enquiry proceeding and in compliance of the same, Mr. Umesh Kumar Sahu, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) appeared before this Court along with records which reveals that the petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet reiterating the same stand which he has taken from very beginning, the same was found unsatisfactory. As such, the Collector appointed departmental Enquiry Officer, Mahasamund as Enquiry Officer and Sub Divisional Officer (R) as Presenting Officer vide order dated 21.08.2017. The Enquiry Officer vide its order sheet dated 22.08.2017 has directed for issuance of notice to the delinquent/Presenting Officer/Witness and fixed the proceeding for 04.09.2017. The records of the case does not reflect that notice was served upon the deceased employee as no receipt of notice is made available with the record and from order-sheets also it does not reflect that notice was issued to the deceased. Since no notice was issued to the deceased employee, as such, he was not present before the Enquiry Officer on 04.09.2017 and on the same date, the Enquiry Officer has examined witnesses namely Bhekhlal Sahu, Bharat Rajput, Ganesh Bagh, Sarkesh Kumar Sahu and Vishwash Rao Maske (Tahsildar). The ordersheet dated 04.09.2017 would also reflect that the witnesses were examined and cross-examined, whereas the deceased was not present. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, adjourned the enquiry proceedings for 18.09.2017. On that date the deceased employee appeared and he was examined wherein he has reiterated the same stand which he has taken from very initial stage and also stated that the deceased employee in his examination-in-chief has stated that he became unconscious at about 9.30 p.m. while coming from circuit house at Pipli Naka, which has caused the accident. The Presenting Officer has not cross-examined this witness. 7. On the basis of evidence collected during the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report wherein relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, held that the deceased employee is negligent towards discharging his duty, but has not given any consideration to the defence taken by the deceased employee. The Presenting Officer has not cross-examined this witness. 7. On the basis of evidence collected during the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report wherein relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, held that the deceased employee is negligent towards discharging his duty, but has not given any consideration to the defence taken by the deceased employee. The Enquiry Officer has recorded its finding that on medical examination was done by the District Hospital Doctor, there was no mention that the deceased employee was suffering from epilepsy disease, as such, the petitioner has committed misconduct. The Enquiry Officer in its report at last paragraph has advised for taking penal action against the deceased employee. 8. The enquiry report was supplied to the deceased employee and he has submitted the reply to it. After taking note of the reply submitted by the deceased employee, punishment order was passed by the Collector on 20.04.2018. 9. The issue involved in this case is whether enquiry against the deceased employee has been conducted in accordance with principle of natural justice, Rules governing the field? From the records it is quite vivid that no notice for hearing was issued to the delinquent for appearance on 04.09.2017 as no material was placed on record to suggest that deceased was directed to appear in the enquiry proceeding on 04.09.2017. The record of the enquiry proceeding particularly the medical examination report of the deceased employee would reflect that the Doctor has advised for EEG and C.T. Scan of brain to rule out epilepsy and then medical opinion be sought. The record does not reflect that such medical examination of EEG and C.T. Scan of brain or medical opinion has been obtained. Without any material the Enquiry Officer has rejected the defence of the deceased employee with regard to epilepsy. As such, the findings are perverse. 10. The duties of an Enquiry Officer has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 has held at paragraph 14, 15, 22 and 23 has held as under: “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled 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. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. Appellant being an employee of the bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the Enquiry Officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled 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. 15. 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. 15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. Appellant being an employee of the bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the Enquiry Officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.” 11. The Enquiry Officer in its report has recommended for taking penal action against the deceased employee which is also against the General Instruction issued under Rule 14 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1966 provides that the Enquiry Officer need not propose any punishment and the instruction also provides that the finding of the departmental enquiry should be based on the evidence before the Enquiry Officer and if the evidence does not suffice to prove the offence but only establishes a compromising suspicion of misbehavior or misconduct, this should be stated. From the record it is also established that the Enquiry Officer has recorded its finding without any evidence brought on record and thus, violated the instructions issued under Rule 14 of the Rules which govern the procedure for conducting departmental enquiry against a government servant. 12. Considering the above stated legal, factual matrix of the case, it is quite vivid the enquiry has been conducted in violation of principle of natural justice and against the instructions and on the basis of incorrect enquiry, the punishment has been passed. As such, the impugned punishment order dated 20.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 13. As such, the impugned punishment order dated 20.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 13. During pendency of the petition, the deceased employee expired, therefore, no relief of reinstatement can be granted, but considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the salary of the deceased employee for 8 months during the pendency of the enquiry has not been released. This fact has not been disputed by the State. Therefore, the State is directed to release salary of the petitioner i.e. of 8 months, which has not been released. The State is also directed to grant other retiral dues permissible under the law to the legal representatives of the deceased employee. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition is allowed.