ORDER : (S.G. PANDIT, J.) In the above two writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the common order dated 17.08.2022 passed in Application No.4409/2021 c/w Application No.17/2021, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) rejecting their applications, questioning the imposition of penalty of withholding 4 annual increments with cumulative effect and withholding promotion for a period of 4 years from the date they become eligible for promotion under Government Order dated 20.07.2020. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: At the relevant point of time, the petitioner in W.P.No.25759/2024 was working as Forest Guard and petitioner in W.P.No.21666/2022 was working as Range Forest Officer at Sakaleshpura. On the complaint of one Suresh D.K., who was working as Watchman on daily wage basis, investigation was taken up by the 3 rd respondent and thereafter, considering the report of the Upa Lokayukta, the 1 st respondent-state entrusted the enquiry to the 3 rd respondent. The 3 rd respondent issued common Articles of Charge to the petitioners dated 04.01.2017 alleging that while they were working as Forest Guard and Range Forest Officer respectively during the year 2011 have failed to discharge their duties diligently resulting in cutting and moving of certain valuable produce of cut trees in Sakaleshpura Forest. Thus, they have failed to maintain absolute integrity besides devotion to duty and thus misconducted themselves under Rule 3(1) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct)Rules 1966. The 3 rd respondent conducted enquiry. 3. During the course of enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 i.e., the complainant and Sri.G.Venkatesh, Assistant Conservator of Forest and Investigation Officer who had submitted Ex.P6 (Annexure-A3 in W.P.No.25759/2024) and marked as many as 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12, whereas the petitioners-accused Government Servants examined themselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2 apart from marking Ex.D1 to Ex.D9. 4. The Enquiry Officer under report dated 29.06.2019 recorded a finding that the charge is proved and the petitioners have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. The petitioners were issued with second show-cause notice along with enquiry report and recommendation of Upa-Lokayuktha. The petitioners said to have submitted their explanation to the second show-cause notice. The first respondent-State Government, under impugned Government Order dated 20.07.2020 imposed punishment of withholding 4 annual increments with cumulative effect and withholding of promotion for a period of 4 years from the date they become eligible for promotion. The petitioners said to have submitted their explanation to the second show-cause notice. The first respondent-State Government, under impugned Government Order dated 20.07.2020 imposed punishment of withholding 4 annual increments with cumulative effect and withholding of promotion for a period of 4 years from the date they become eligible for promotion. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the petitioners were before the Tribunal in the above stated applications. The Tribunal, observing that re-appreciation of material placed before the Enquiry Officer is not permissible and came to the conclusion that the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is based on materials. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court in these two writ petitions. 5. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajgopal along with Sri.Amruthesh C., learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.25759/2024 as well as learned senior counsel Professor C.M.Nagabhushana, for petitioner in W.P.No.21666/2022; Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 6. Learned senior counsels appearing for the petitioners would submit that the finding of the Enquiry Officer and consequent imposition of punishment is opposed to the material on record and is the result of non-application of mind. Learned senior counsels for the petitioners mainly contended that the charge leveled against the petitioners are vague and that the author of Ex.P6/report of the Assistant Conservator of Forest which is the basis for proving the charge is not examined and there was no opportunity for the petitioners to cross-examine on the said report which would amount to denial of proper opportunity to defend themselves in the enquiry. 7. Learned senior counsels for the petitioners referring to the Articles of Charge would submit that the charge leveled against the petitioners would not contain any details and it would not disclose area in which the trees are cut and what is the value of the cut trees. In the absence of details, the petitioners were not in a position to explain and defend themselves. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners would further submit that Ex.P6 and Ex.P12 are the reports of the two different Assistant Conservator of Forest which were produced before the Enquiry Officer in support of the case of the Disciplinary Authority. In the absence of details, the petitioners were not in a position to explain and defend themselves. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners would further submit that Ex.P6 and Ex.P12 are the reports of the two different Assistant Conservator of Forest which were produced before the Enquiry Officer in support of the case of the Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that the author of Ex.P12 was examined and it is specifically submitted that there is no finding against the petitioners in Ex.P12. On other hand, it is submitted that the report would state that the petitioners have not participated in cutting the trees. However, it is submitted that in Ex.P6 there is allegation against the petitioners that there is unauthorized cutting of trees. When such allegations are made against the petitioners, the author of the report ought to have been examined. Non- examination of the author of Ex.P6 has resulted in denial of proper opportunity to the petitioners. In that, they are denied opportunity to cross-examine the author of Ex.P6. Non-examination of author of Ex.P6 has prejudiced the cases of the petitioners. Further, it is submitted that both the enquiry officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority has failed to take note of the said contention raised by the petitioners and failed to examine as to whether non-examination of the author of Ex.P6 has resulted prejudice to the petitioners. Thus, they pray for allowing the writ petitions. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would support the report of the enquiry officer and they also justify the punishment imposed on the petitioners. It is submitted that non-examination of author of Ex.P6 has not resulted in denial of opportunity to the petitioners. Since the author of Ex.P12 has been examined, the petitioners cannot complain that they had no proper opportunity. Further, learned counsel would submit that the charge against the petitioners is serious as they are responsible for unauthorized cutting of trees in Sakaleshpura range and as such they submit that the punishment imposed is proportionate to the gravity of charge. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 10. Further, learned counsel would submit that the charge against the petitioners is serious as they are responsible for unauthorized cutting of trees in Sakaleshpura range and as such they submit that the punishment imposed is proportionate to the gravity of charge. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the following point would arise for our consideration: Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the impugned order of punishment dated 20.07.2020 requires interference at the hands of this Court? 11. Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons: In a departmental proceedings/enquiry, charges could be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Strict rules of evidence is not applicable to the departmental enquiry/proceedings. Strict rules of evidence is not applicable to the departmental enquiry, would not mean that there need not be any evidence. There shall be some evidence to prove the charge. The Enquiry Officer shall comply the principles of natural justice and delinquent officer shall be given every opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. 12. The common charge against the petitioners in terms of Articles of Charge dated 04.01.2017 reads as follows: “That, you DGO-1 Smt.T.A.Ratnaprabha, Range Forest Officer, Sakaleshpura, Hassan and you DGO-2 Sri.T.H.Chandregowda, Forest Guard, Sakaleshpura, Hassan District, while working as Range Forest Officer and Forester respectively during the year 2011, have failed to discharge your duties diligently resulting in cutting and moving of certain valuable produce of cut trees in Sakaleshpur forest. Thus, you DGOs 1 and 2, being Government/public servants have failed to maintain absolute integrity besides devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of Government servants and thus committed misconduct as enumerated U/R 3(1) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.” 13. A reading of the above charge would indicate that the petitioners have failed to discharge their duties diligently resulting in cutting and moving of certain valuable trees in Sakaleshpura Forest. The charge would not give any other particulars, such as, the period during which the trees were cut, the area of cutting trees, number of trees cut or value of the trees cut, the date and time of the cutting trees etc. The charge leveled against the petitioners is general in nature. The charge would not give any other particulars, such as, the period during which the trees were cut, the area of cutting trees, number of trees cut or value of the trees cut, the date and time of the cutting trees etc. The charge leveled against the petitioners is general in nature. The charge shall always be specific with all details and there shall not be any ambiguity in the charge. Unless delinquent official is in a position to understand the charge, he/she would not be in a position to answer the same. As the charge is not specific and definite, further proceedings in the enquiry has vitiated. 14. With regard to vagueness of charge, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ANIL GILURKER v/s BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK AND ANOTHER reported in (2011)14 SCC 379 at paragraphs 11 and 14 has held as follows: 11. A plain reading of the charges and the statement of imputations reproduced above would show that only vague allegations were made against the appellant that he had sanctioned loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units by committing irregularities, but did not disburse the entire loan amount to the borrowers and while a portion of the loan amount was deposited in the account of the borrowers, the balance was misappropriated by him and others. The details of the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers have not been mentioned in the charges. The amounts of loan which were sanctioned and the amounts which were actually disbursed to the borrowers and the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the appellant have not been mentioned. 14. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent case of Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar (supra) and in Para 35 of the judgment as reported in the SCC, this Court has observed that the law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. The above decision lays down that without giving the details of the incident which are the bedrock for charge or charges, no enquiry could be sustained. 15. The above decision lays down that without giving the details of the incident which are the bedrock for charge or charges, no enquiry could be sustained. 15. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that non-examination of author of Ex.P6 would amount to denial of opportunity to cross-examine, as the said report is the basis for holding that the charge is proved against the petitioners. A perusal of Ex.P6 and Ex.P12 which are placed on record as Annexures-A4 and A3 respectively in W.P.No.25759/2024 discloses that, under Annexure-A3/report of the Assistant Conservator of Forest, observed that there is unauthorized cutting of trees in Sakaleshpur Range whereas under Annexure-A4, the subsequent report of the Assistant Conservator of Forest it is observed that the petitioners have not participated in unauthorized cutting of trees. Though the Disciplinary Authority examined the author of Ex.P12, but failed to examine the author of Ex.P6 wherein there is some allegation against the petitioners. Non-examination of the author of Ex.P6 has definitely prejudiced the cases of the petitioners. If the petitioners were to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the author of Ex.P6, the petitioners would have tried to establish that they are not involved in unauthorized cutting of trees as alleged. The Hon'ble Apex Court in RAJIV ARORA v/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 15 SCC 306 while dealing with the non-examination of maker of the report in a Court Martial proceedings has observed that the principles of natural justice demand that the maker of the report should be examined. It has also further observed that non-examination of the maker of the report would violate principles of natural justice. Relevant paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 reads as follows: 11. The respondents never denied or disputed the said contentions. It is, however, urged that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner due to non-examination of the said witnesses during the summary of evidence. Such a plea has been raised on the premise that a report had been furnished, inter alia, in respect of charge No.2 by Shri Dipendra Pathak and the same has been produced in the summary of evidence by Sq. Ldr. T.S. Reddy who was the custodian thereof. 12. Whether prejudice has been caused by non-examination of witnesses named in the charge-sheet is essentially a question of fact. Ldr. T.S. Reddy who was the custodian thereof. 12. Whether prejudice has been caused by non-examination of witnesses named in the charge-sheet is essentially a question of fact. An inference is required to be drawn having regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in each case. The charges framed as against the appellant were specific. The misconducts were said to have been committed are in relation to the persons named therein. In the proceedings, seven witnesses were examined, namely, Air Commander M. Bhandari, Sgt. Narender Kumar, Flight Lieutenant S. Dasgupta, Group Captain S.S. Kothari, Group Captain P.W. Amberkar, Group Captain S.C. Kabra and Squadron Leader T.S. Reddy. 13. No explanation has been offered as to why the concerned witnesses could not be examined. Shri Reddy, PW-7 was the custodian of the report. He was not the maker thereof. Effective cross-examination could have been done as regards the correctness or otherwise of the report, if the contents of them were proved. The principles analogous to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act as also the principles of natural justice demand that the maker of the report should be examined, save and except in cases where the facts are admitted or the witnesses are not available for cross-examination or similar situation. No reason has been assigned as to why the named witnesses who only could prove the change had not been examined. Indisputably, they were the prime witnesses. 16. The Tribunal, under impugned order proceeded to dismiss the applications only on the ground that re- appreciation of entire material placed before the Enquiry Officer is not permissible, without examining as to whether the petitioners had given proper opportunity to defend themselves before the Enquiry Officer and also failed to examine whether there is violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal shall look into the enquiry material to find out whether there is some evidence. Re-appreciation of evidence is different from finding out as to whether there is some evidence to prove the charge/s. 17. For the reasons recorded above, the petitioners are bound to succeed. Hence, the following order: Both the writ petitions are allowed. Common order dated 17.08.2022 in Application No.4409/2021 and Application No.17/2021 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, applications filed before the Tribunal are allowed and common impugned order of C¥Àfà 128 CE« 2016 penalty bearing No. dated20.07.2020 (Annexure –A18) is quashed.