JUDGMENT : N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J. Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned standing counsel, APDCL, appearing for the respondents No 2 to 5. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding has assailed an order dated 30.10.2017, issued by the Managing Director, APDCL, imposing upon him a penalty of “Stoppage of 2 (two)annual increments” on conclusion of a Departmental Proceeding instituted against him. The petitioner has also presented a challenge to the Enquiry Report dated 29.03.2017 as well as the order dated 02.08.2018, passed by the Appellate Authority, rejecting the appeal submitted by the petitioner against the said order dated 30.10.2017. 3. The Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner on 08.10.2015, instituted a Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner with regard to misconducts committed by him during his tenure of service as Sub-Divisional Engineer, Rangapara Electrical Sub Division w.e.f 01.06.2011 to 04.03.2015. Three Charges were so framed against the petitioner basing on the allegations set out against him in the “statement of allegations” appended to the said Charge-Sheet dated 08.10.2015. 4. The petitioner on receipt of the said Charge-sheet dated 08.10.2015, proceeded to submit his written statement of defense in the matter on 23.11.2015 and therein, denied the allegations leveled against him and prayed for being exonerated from the charges so framed. 5. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner not being satisfied with the contentions raised by the petitioner in his written statement, proceeded to direct for holding of an enquiry in the matter and accordingly an enquiry was so held. 6. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, proceeded to submit his enquiry report on 29.05.2017, and therein, while holding the Charge No. 1, leveled against the petitioner to be not proved, held the Charge No. 2 and 3, to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner vide communication dated 23.05.2017, forwarded the said enquiry report to the petitioner and also indicated therein that a penalty of stoppage of 2 (two) annual increments was proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner vide his representation dated 10.07.2017, dealt with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and prayed therein that he be also exonerated from Charge Nos. 2 & 3. The petitioner vide his representation dated 10.07.2017, dealt with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and prayed therein that he be also exonerated from Charge Nos. 2 & 3. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, on consideration of the matter proceeded vide order dated 30.10.2017, to impose upon the petitioner, a penalty of “stoppage of 2 (two) annual increments”. With the imposition of the said penalty, the Disciplinary Proceeding instituted against the petitioner vide the Charge-Sheet dated 08.10.2015, was disposed of. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2017, proceeded to prefer an appeal in the matter before the appellate authority vide his appeal memo dated 27.12.2017. The appellate authority, i.e., the Board of Directors of the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. on consideration of the appeal preferred by the petitioner proceeded vide order dated 02.04.2018, to reject the said appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings with the reliefs as noticed herein above: 8. Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the penalty imposed upon the petitioner has submitted that the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report had come to a conclusion that the allegation of causing loss of revenue to the company was not established against the appellant. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Charge No. 2 & 3 are nothing but derivatives of Charge No. 1 and the Charge No. 1 not having been established against the appellant, the Charge No. 2 and Charge No.3 could not have been held to have been so established against the petitioner herein, by the Enquiry Officer. 9. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court through the statement of allegations leveled against the petitioner pertaining to the charges so framed against him, has submitted that in the enquiry, materials had come on record, which had demonstrated that the bill rectifications and roll backs involved were so carried out behind the back of the appellant, by the concerned Bill Clerk and the Cashier of the Division. However, inspite of such materials coming on record which had demonstrated that the petitioner herein, was not involved in the said illegal acts, the petitioner was singled out while the bill clerk and the cashier involved were not subjected to any disciplinary proceeding. 10. Mr. However, inspite of such materials coming on record which had demonstrated that the petitioner herein, was not involved in the said illegal acts, the petitioner was singled out while the bill clerk and the cashier involved were not subjected to any disciplinary proceeding. 10. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Charge No. 2, alleges breach of law/established procedure, applicable to the Establishment by the petitioner. He submits that in view of the fact that the Charge No.1 was not proved against the petitioner, basing on the same materials it was not open to the Enquiry Officer to hold the Charge No. 2 to have been established against the petitioner herein. Similarly, he submits that the Charge No. 3, which pertains to Breach of ASEB Officer’s (Conduct) Regulations 1982, also could not have been held to have been established against the petitioner, inasmuch as in the enquiry, no materials were brought on record to even remotely question his integrity and/or devotion towards duty. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the materials coming on record having not indicated that the petitioner had acted in the matter in a manner unbecoming of an officer of the Board, the Charge No. 3, also could not have been established against the petitioner herein. 11. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the imposition of penalty of the stoppage of 2 (two) annual increments upon the petitioner has adversely affected him, inasmuch as, the same had effect the reducing the pension and pensionary benefits receivable by the petitioner on his superannuation from service w.e.f. 31.01.2020. 12. In the above premises, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the orders impugned in the writ petition would require an interference, and with further directions to the respondents to reauthorize to the petitioner the increments withheld from him. 13. Per contra, Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned standing counsel, APDCL, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer were so drawn strictly basing upon the materials coming on record in the enquiry. 14. Mr. 13. Per contra, Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned standing counsel, APDCL, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer were so drawn strictly basing upon the materials coming on record in the enquiry. 14. Mr. Pathak, has submitted that the petitioner herein, was extended with all due opportunity to defend his case and accordingly, no prejudice having been brought on record occasioning to the petitioner in defending the charges leveled against him in the enquiry, the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer would not call for any interference by this Court. 15. Mr. Pathak, has submitted that the petitioner as the Sub-Divisional Engineer, being the head of the office, was required to act in a manner, which would protect the interest of the company and admittedly, the petitioner having failed to discharge his duties in the manner required, the consequential loss so occasioning to the company both in financial terms as well as loss of confidence of the consumers in the matter, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide the order dated 30.10.2017, cannot be held to be disproportionate to the allegations leveled against the appellant and proved in the enquiry. 16. In the above premises, Mr. Pathak, learned standing counsel, APDCL, submits that the penalty as imposed upon the appellant would not mandate an interference by this Court in the present proceedings. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials coming on record. 18. The Departmental Proceeding, instituted against the petitioner vide the Charge-sheet dated 08.10.2015, had leveled 3 (three) charges against him. The charges so leveled against the appellant being relevant is extracted herein below: Charge No. Description 1 Causing loss to Company’s revenue. 2 Breach of Law/ Established Procedure applicable to the Establishment. 3 Breach of the ASEB officer’s (Conduct) Regulation, 1982. 19. In support of the said charges a “statement of allegation” was appended to the said Charge-sheet. A perusal of the allegations leveled against the appellant in connection with the Charge No. 1, framed against him, would go to reveal that the allegations pertain to the irregularities committed in the Sub-Division headed by the petitioner which had come to the notice of the authorities in pursuance to an internal audit report, submitted in the matter. A perusal of the allegations leveled against the appellant in connection with the Charge No. 1, framed against him, would go to reveal that the allegations pertain to the irregularities committed in the Sub-Division headed by the petitioner which had come to the notice of the authorities in pursuance to an internal audit report, submitted in the matter. The irregularities highlighted pertains to irregular bill rectification and payment roll back granted to various consumers without there being proper recording of the same in the concerned register. The second allegation pertains to the under billing of certain customers highlighted in the allegation. The irregularities committed in unauthorized bill rectifications as well as payment roll back and the under billing of certain customers had been held to have resulted in causing huge revenue loss to the company. 20. The allegation leveled with regard to the Charge No. 2, relates to the same very bill rectifications and payment roll backs carried out in the division during the tenure of the petitioner therein as its Sub-Divisional Engineer and the inability of the petitioner to produce the concerned registers wherein, such bill rectifications and payment roll backs were required to be noted. It was further alleged that the petitioner had failed to maintain records of issue and receipt of manual receipt books. The allegations forming the basis of the Charge No. 2, basically pertains to the failure on the part of the petitioner to maintain registers for recording the rectifications of the bills as well as payment roll back affected during his tenure and for not maintaining records of the issue and receipt of manual receipt books. 21. The allegation pertaining to Charge No. 3, is a derivative of the allegations forming the basis of Charge No. 1 & Charge No. 2, and it alleges that the petitioner had on account of the omission and commission noticed in relation to Charge Nos. 1 & 2, failed to maintain absolute integrity and his actions were unbecoming of an officer of the company. 22. The petitioner responded to the said allegation forming the basis of the charges framed against him vide the Charge-sheet dated 08.10.2015, vide his written statement of defense stated 23.11.2015. 1 & 2, failed to maintain absolute integrity and his actions were unbecoming of an officer of the company. 22. The petitioner responded to the said allegation forming the basis of the charges framed against him vide the Charge-sheet dated 08.10.2015, vide his written statement of defense stated 23.11.2015. In his written statement the petitioner with regard to the issue of rectification of bills and roll backs had clarified that the said activities were carried out by the bill clerk and the cashier of the Division, behind his back and for the purpose no approval was stated to have been taken from him. The petitioner had categorically stated that he was kept in the dark of the same and he had never approved any such roll back and or bill rectification. With regard to the under billing of the consumers noticed in the allegations pertaining to the Charge No. 1, petitioner has submitted that the same in pursuance to the audit reports were regularized. As regards the non-maintenance of manual receipt books, the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance to the audit reports submitted in the matter, a register for keeping the records of the manual receipt book was already opened and the Head Assistant of the Sub- Division has been maintaining the same. Further, with regard to the discrepancy existing with regard to the amount received through manual receipt books, the petitioner highlighted that amounts involved was reimbursed by the concerned persons, who had made the said collections. 23. The Enquiry Officer on conclusion of his enquiry, submitted his report on 29.03.2017. A perusal of the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry, would go to reveal that the Enquiry Officer had concluded that the audit objections pertaining un billing/under billing was already met by the petitioner and no adverse conclusion in this connection was drawn against the appellant. With regard to the irregularities detected by the audit in the matter of bill rectification and payment roll back, the Enquiry Officer had recorded a conclusion that the petitioner had brought such activity on the part of the bill clerk and the cashier, to the notice of his superiors. Further, it was concluded that the payment roll back and rectification of the bills were done by the bill clerk and the cashier of the Sub-division and the petitioner had no role therein. 24. Further, it was concluded that the payment roll back and rectification of the bills were done by the bill clerk and the cashier of the Sub-division and the petitioner had no role therein. 24. Having drawn the above conclusions, the Enquiry Officer, proceeded to draw a conclusion that the petitioner being the Head of the Office did not discharge his duties in the manner required and rather was fully dependent on his office staff and thereby failed to supervise and monitor their works and also failed to follow the procedure, rules and regulation. It was further concluded that the petitioner did not maintain mandatory registers and pertinent documents and was unable to produce the same for cross- verification. Basing on the said conclusions the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold that the Charge No 1, pertaining to with causing loss of revenue to the company could not be held to be established against the petitioner, however, the Enquiry Officer, proceeded to hold that the Charge No. 2 & 3, were established in the enquiry against the petitioner. 25. As noticed above, findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly, vide order dated 30.10.2017, a penalty of stoppage of 2 (two) annual increments came to be imposed upon the petitioner. The enquiry report has submitted in the matter by the Enquiry Officer, would required a close examination to appreciate the challenge made thereto by the petitioner in the present proceedings. 26. A perusal of the “Statement of allegations” appended to the Charge sheet dated 08.10.2015 would go to reveal that the allegations leveled against the petitioner can be broadly stated to be the following : (i). Irregular bill rectification and payment roll back carried out with regard to certain consumers in the Sub-Division during the tenure of the petitioner as its Sub-Divisional Engineer, leading to loss of revenue to the company. (ii). Un billing / under billing of the bills of certain customers leading to loss of revenue to the company. (iii). Failure, on the part of the petitioner to maintain records of issue and receipt of manual receipt books. 27. A perusal of the enquiry report would go to reveal that the first allegation leveled against the petitioner pertaining to bill rectification and payment roll back was concluded by the Enquiry Officer to have been not committed by the petitioner. (iii). Failure, on the part of the petitioner to maintain records of issue and receipt of manual receipt books. 27. A perusal of the enquiry report would go to reveal that the first allegation leveled against the petitioner pertaining to bill rectification and payment roll back was concluded by the Enquiry Officer to have been not committed by the petitioner. The materials brought on record would go to reveal that the same were carried out by the bill clerk and the cashier of the Sub-Division without the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner being the Sub-Divisional Engineer had bonafidely given the password of his ID, for carrying out such works in the Division for the purpose of convenience of the consumers inasmuch as, the petitioner was regularly required to remain out of his office in the field to supervise various activities involved. It is seen that the materials brought on record in the enquiry further demonstrated that the bill clerk and the cashier of the department had carried out the said irregularities, behind the back of the petitioner, herein. 28. With regard to the allegation of un billing / under billing, the Enquiry Officer, had already concluded that the objection raised in this connection in the Audit report was met by the petitioner and no adverse conclusion being drawn against him in the matter, the said allegation would not mandate any further discussion in this order. 29. With regard to the allegation leveled against the petitioner pertaining to non maintenance of registers for recording issuance and receipt of manual receipt books, the Enquiry Officer in his report recorded a general conclusions in this connection the petitioner did not maintain mandatory register and pertinent documents and the same were also not produced for cross checking when asked for. From such general conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer, it would not be permissible to presume that the allegation pertaining to maintenance of records of manual receipt books, stood established. It is to be noted that the petitioner in his written statement had categorically contended in pursuance to the audit reports submitted in the matter, a register for keeping the records of the manual receipt book was already opened and the Head Assistant of the Sub- Division has been maintaining the same. It is to be noted that the petitioner in his written statement had categorically contended in pursuance to the audit reports submitted in the matter, a register for keeping the records of the manual receipt book was already opened and the Head Assistant of the Sub- Division has been maintaining the same. Further, with regard to the discrepancy existing with regard to the amount received through manual receipt books, the petitioner highlighted that amounts involved was reimbursed by the concerned persons, who had made the said collections. The said contention of the petitioner has not been disproved in the enquiry. Accordingly, the said allegation also cannot be held to be established. 30. The allegations leveled against the petitioner with regard to bill rectification, roll back of amounts involved in bills, on being considered in the enquiry, the materials brought on record in support of this said allegation having highlighted the involvement of the bill clerk and the cashier of the Sub-Division, in commission of the same, this Court had required the Standing Counsel, APDCL, to receive instructions as to whether any proceedings were instituted against the said persons. 31. Mr. Pathak, learned standing counsel, APDCL, basing on the instructions received by him, has submitted that no Departmental proceedings or Criminal Proceedings were instituted against the bill clerk and the cashier. 32. In view of the above position, the materials brought on record having demonstrated that the irregularities involved in the allegation No. 1 noticed hereinabove being committed by the said bill clerk and the cashier, no blame thereon can be laid on the shoulder of the petitioner herein, although, he was the head of the office in as much as, such activities were admittedly carried out behind his back and without his knowledge. The enquiry officer had rightly held that the Charge No. 1 was not established against the petitioner. 33. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer, pertaining the Charge No. 1, in the enquiry report against the appellant, would not mandate an interference and the same is upheld. Having upheld the finding of the enquiry officer, pertaining to Charge No. 1, this Court is of the considered view that as noticed hereinabove Charge Nos. Having upheld the finding of the enquiry officer, pertaining to Charge No. 1, this Court is of the considered view that as noticed hereinabove Charge Nos. 2 & 3, being a derivative of Charge No. 1, the same would also not been maintainable and accordingly, the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer that the Charge No. 2 & 3 were established would mandate interference. 34. The Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of imposing the penalty upon the petitioner, had agreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and this Court having held that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer pertaining to Charge No. 1, would not mandate interference while the findings so recorded pertaining to Charge No. 2 & 3, would mandate interference, the basis for imposing upon the penalty vide the order dated 30.10.2017 stands removed, rendering the order dated 30.10.2017, unsustainable, and accordingly, warrants interference by this Court. 35. In view of the conclusions reached herein above the enquiry report dated 29.03.2017, along with the order dated 30.10.2017 of the disciplinary authority and the order dated 02.04.2018, passed by the appellate authority stand set aside. 36. The orders impugned in the present proceedings having been interfered with, the petitioner is exonerated from the charges leveled against him, vide the Charge-sheet dated 08.10.2015. The respondent authorities would now re-authorize to the petitioner the 2 (two) increments withheld from him and thereafter, compute the arrears of salaries now receivable by the petitioner and release the same to the petitioners within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 37. Further, the appointing authority of the petitioner shall examine as to whether the reauthorization of the 2(two) increments to the petitioner on interference with the order dated 30.10.2017, would mandate a re-computation of the pension and pensionary benefits received by the petitioner. In the event, such re-computation is so called for, the same shall be carried out and the arrears thereof be also released to the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months, along with the arrears of his salaries. 38. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.