JUDGMENT : Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. 1. Challenging the disciplinary proceeding including the impugned resolutions and orders passed by the disciplinary authority whereby, a punishment in the form of major penalty of dismissal from service having been affected on the petitioner with effect from 16th October, 2017, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner while working in the office of the Controller Auditor General of India, in response to an advertisement of Bose Institute, an autonomous institute, Department of Science and Technology, under the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, having its office at 93/1, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata – 700009, had applied for the post of Registrar of the said institution (hereinafter referred to as the “said institute”). The petitioner was selected for the post of Registrar of the said institute, and had accordingly joined the institute as Registrar on 1st June, 2012. While discharging his duty as Registrar, on the basis of a complaint made against him on 22nd July, 2014, by one Non-Governmental Organization, the same was acted upon by the Central Vigilance Officer of the Department of Science and Technology, Central Vigilance Commission. On the basis of the advice given by the Central Vigilance Officer, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 8th October, 2014 by the said institute. On 11th September, 2014, the respondent no.4 in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(h) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) directed that an investigation to be conducted against the petitioner into the complaint lodged. Subsequently, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the Memorandum of Charge-sheet issued on 30th March, 2015 and an enquiry officer was appointed. Challenging the order of suspension as well as the charge-sheet, the petitioner filed two separate writ petitions, which were registered as W.P. No. 6081 (W) of 2015 and W.P. No. 8820 (W) of 2015. By an order dated 8th May, 2015, this Hon’ble Court after considering the report of the fact-finding committee and also noting that the Council till then did not ratify the action of the Director in placing the petitioner under suspension directed the Council of said Institute to arrive at a decision whether any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was at all warranted or not. The matter was accordingly placed under the heading ‘to be mentioned’ and made returnable. During the pendency of the writ petitions, Bose Institute Council in its 183rd meeting decided to ratify the decision of the Director of Bose Institute, placing the petitioner under suspension and commenced disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. This, according to the petitioner, was not in accordance with law. However, by order dated 22nd July, 2016, the Hon’ble Court taking note of the developments, disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions: 1. The disciplinary authority of the petitioner shall furnish to him copy of the enquiry report within a fortnight from date of receipt of a copy of this order; 2. It shall be open to the petitioner to raise all points available to him in law as well as the points raised in these writ petitions in his response to the enquiry report, which must be submitted within a month of receipt thereof, and 3. The disciplinary authority shall give due consideration to the response of the petitioner and pass a final order as early as possible but not later than eight weeks from date of receipt thereof. 3. The petitioner thereafter, participated in the disciplinary proceeding. However, since during hearing, the petitioner had detected that the prosecution witnesses were tampering, and manufacturing evidence, the petitioner had challenged such action by filing a further writ petition being W.P. No. 16321 (W) of 2017. 4. In the interregnum, however, despite the petitioner’s objection as to the validity and acceptablity of the evidence, the enquiry officer submitted the report and on the basis of the enquiry conducted, the respondent no.4 issued the second stage advice under the Office Memorandum dated 9th February, 2017 by advising imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner. Following the above in the 189th meeting of the Council dated 16th October, 2017, the Council imposed a major penalty in the form of dismissal from service on the petitioner. By reasons of the above, the writ petition being W.P. No. 16905 (W) of 2017 having become infructuous was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner thereafter had preferred an appeal from the above order of the Director of the Bose Institute dated 16th October, 2017. Later it came to the notice of the petitioner that the respondent no.6 was to hear the appeal, who had himself passed the order of dismissal. The petitioner thereafter had preferred an appeal from the above order of the Director of the Bose Institute dated 16th October, 2017. Later it came to the notice of the petitioner that the respondent no.6 was to hear the appeal, who had himself passed the order of dismissal. In the facts as noted above, the petitioner raised serious objection. However, since the objection filed by the petitioner was ignored, he filed a writ petition, which was registered as W.P. No. 1454 (W) of 2019. By an order dated 18th February, 2019, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe that the appeal committee be reconstituted by substituting the members, who were members in the Council which acted as the disciplinary authority, and accordingly directed the appeal to be disposed of upon giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with an office order dated 18th March, 2020 which was adopted by the members of the respondent no.6 Council in the 197th meeting when the petitioner’s appeal was disposed of without affording opportunity of hearing. Challenging the above, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Respondents have contested the case by filing affidavit-in-opposition. Since then, the records had been called for and was examined, the matter has also been heard at length. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the disciplinary authority is cryptic and does not deal with the reply given by the petitioner to the enquiry officer’s report. Despite the fact that the petitioner had raised 30 specific points, such points have not been considered by the disciplinary authority. According to the petitioner, the second stage advice is also cryptic. The same has been issued without dealing with the points raised in the instant case. No first stage advice had also been issued. Although, by an order dated 18th February, 2019, this Hon’ble Court had directed reconstitution of the appeal committee by substituting the member who had acted as a disciplinary authority, the same had not been done. One S.K. Roy was kept in the appeal committee which is violative of the directions issued by the Court. The departmental circular dated 13th July, 1981 has also been placed before this Court, which according to the petitioner makes it obligatory and mandatory for the disciplinary authority to assign reasons. One S.K. Roy was kept in the appeal committee which is violative of the directions issued by the Court. The departmental circular dated 13th July, 1981 has also been placed before this Court, which according to the petitioner makes it obligatory and mandatory for the disciplinary authority to assign reasons. In the facts as noted above, the petitioner seeks for setting aside of the order of dismissal and the appellate order. 7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5 have stated that the enquiry report does not form subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. Though, the major grounds for challenge are directed against the enquiry report, according to the learned counsel, the charge-sheet was formed in accordance with law. The enquiry report was duly shared with the charged officer whereupon a response was also filed. However, since no substantial defence was set up to counter the findings, the same was ignored. On the issue of the cryptic order being passed, reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors., reported in (2021) 3 SCC 806 . According to the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5, once, the disciplinary authority accepts the enquiry officer’s findings and confirms the same, no additional reasons are necessary. The present case is no different. In the instant case, consequent upon acceptance of the findings of the enquiry officer’s report no fresh reasons were necessary. According to the respondents, the petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing at every stage. It is not the case of the petitioner that there has been denial of principles of natural justice. On the issue of procedural irregularity, it is submitted that mere procedural irregularity cannot vitiate the enquiry unless the delinquent is in a position to demonstrate prejudice being caused. In support of his aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of State Bank of Patiala & Ors. v. S.K. Sharma, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 364 . Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed with costs. 8. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. v. S.K. Sharma, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 364 . Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed with costs. 8. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. In this context, it would be relevant to note that the charge-sheet was served against the petitioner whereunder 12 several articles of charges were framed against the petitioner, which are based on the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior. The articles of charges are extracted hereinbelow: 9. The petitioner had participated in such proceeding as would appear from the enquiry officer’s report and had denied the allegations leveled against him. The response of the petitioner to the particular articles of charges is detailed hereunder: 10. After the conclusion of enquiry the enquiry officer had concluded that all the charges except articles of charges nos. 8 and 12, had been proved against the petitioner. He also went on to add that the petitioner appears to have acted in such a manner that the name and fame of Bose Institute, a premier scientific research institute of the nation had been defamed and maligned by him. Further, it was also proved that the petitioner had indulged in activities leading to subversion of office discipline, non-maintenance of absolute integrity, non-maintenance of devotion to duty, indulged in activities which are unbecoming of a Government servant and indulged in activities bringing disrepute to the premium national institute which stand in the name of Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose, a legendary figure and one of the great sons of our mother land. Incidentally, these allegations/charges had never been leveled against the petitioner and were not included in the statement of articles of charges, though, the same may have been included in the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in support of the articles of charges framed against the petitioner. However, the same by no stretch of imagination could constitute a specific charge. The statements in support of the articles of charge cannot by themselves constitute a charge, unless the disciplinary authority decides to constitute a charge against the delinquent and calls upon the delinquent to respond to the same. The petitioner had responded to the enquiry report by letter dated 24th August, 2016. The statements in support of the articles of charge cannot by themselves constitute a charge, unless the disciplinary authority decides to constitute a charge against the delinquent and calls upon the delinquent to respond to the same. The petitioner had responded to the enquiry report by letter dated 24th August, 2016. He had highlighted diverse inconsistencies, inter alia, including nonproduction of CFL report of electronic documents, and production of third-party electronic document, as also diverse other issues. 11. The Council being the disciplinary authority upon consideration in the minutes of the meeting held on 23rd September, 2016 under agenda No.6 had observed as follows:- “Agenda Item-6 : Confidential Item (Response of Shri Surajit Panigrahi (Charged Officer) w.f.t. Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Officer). The matter was placed before the Council. Ld. Adcocate Shir Rananeesh Guha Thakurta apprised the members of the Council about the solemn orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta in the writ petition initiated by Shri Surajit Panigrahi and its bearings. The Council, being the Disciplinary Authority of Shir Surajit Panigrahi considered the entire facts and documents on record, including the Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Officer and the response thereto by the Charged Officer (CO) and accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer. Being the disciplinary authority, the Council proposed for the imposition of major penalty on the Charged Officer. However, considering the sensitivity of the case, the Council was of the view that the entire set of documents submitted by the CO needs a careful examination to come to a conclusion to take a fair and just decision in the matter following principal of natural justice, will take some more time than granted by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. Hence, Shri Rananeesh Guha Thakurta was requested to file a request before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta for seeking extension of time for compliance of the 3rd clause of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.” 12. As such, from the above, it should be clear that the disciplinary authority while accepting the report of the enquiry officer had proposed to impose major penalty, however, at the same time had recorded that considering the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court, some more time was necessary to follow the principles of natural justice. As such, from the above, it should be clear that the disciplinary authority while accepting the report of the enquiry officer had proposed to impose major penalty, however, at the same time had recorded that considering the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court, some more time was necessary to follow the principles of natural justice. Later, the disciplinary authority had forwarded the recommendations of the resolution adopted by the council in its 187th meeting held on 23rd September, 2016 against the charged officer along with enquiry report and response filed by the charged officer to the Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India, who by a return communication dated 9th February, 2017 agreed with the decision of the disciplinary authority and advised imposition of major penalty on the petitioner in its second stage advice. Following the above, by Memo dated 14th June, 2017, the petitioner was notified of the proposed penalty. The petitioner had responded to the same by letter dated 30th June, 2017, subsequently, the order of dismissal was passed on 16th October, 2017. 13. I find from the materials on record that the response filed by the petitioner was not dealt with by the disciplinary authority. In this context although, Mr. Chakraborty by placing strong reliance in the case of Balaram Bardalui (supra) has contended that once, the disciplinary authority accepts the enquiry officer’s finding and confirms the same, no additional reasons are necessary. However, noting that in the instant case, the enquiry officer himself had exceeded his authority and had arrived at findings which did not form part of the specific articles of charges and the disciplinary authority having accepted the entirety of the findings of the enquiry officer, there appears to be no independent application of mind by the disciplinary authority. It is for reasons as aforesaid that the judgement does not assist the respondents. It is elementary that, to hold a person guilty of a charge, the charge must be framed, identified and communicated to the delinquent. It is for reasons as aforesaid that the judgement does not assist the respondents. It is elementary that, to hold a person guilty of a charge, the charge must be framed, identified and communicated to the delinquent. Admittedly, in this case, no specific charge of the petitioner indulging in activities leading to subversion of office discipline, non-maintenance of absolute integrity, non-maintenance of devotion to duty, indulged in activities which are unbecoming of a Government servant and indulged in activities bringing disrepute to the premium national institute which stand in the name of Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose, a legendary figure and one of the great sons of our mother land, had been framed. Simply because there were some supporting statements the same could not have authorized the enquiry officer to hold the petitioner guilty of such statements by treating the same to be charges levelled against the petitioner. Since, no specific charge on the above aspect had been framed against the petitioner, question of such charges being proved against the petitioner would not have arisen. The disciplinary authority could not have passed off a supporting statement as a charge. The enquiry officer appears to have exceed his authority in holding that above allegations which did not form specific charges, to be proved against the petitioner. Ordinarily, therefor, the disciplinary authority would have taken note of the aforesaid and in its order/decision while considering the enquiry report either would have disregarded such findings of the disciplinary authority or in the alternative could have given its tentative view as regards the above allegations, for the petitioner to respond to the same. None of the above procedures were followed. The disciplinary authority had simply accepted the enquiry officers report and issued the advice proposing punishment. Even after the petitioner had identified several discrepancies in the enquiry officer’s report, the same were not considered by the disciplinary authority. Having regard thereto and noting that the petitioner had raised several issues including admissibility of the third-party electronic evidence, the least that was expected from the disciplinary authority was consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner. Even after the petitioner had identified several discrepancies in the enquiry officer’s report, the same were not considered by the disciplinary authority. Having regard thereto and noting that the petitioner had raised several issues including admissibility of the third-party electronic evidence, the least that was expected from the disciplinary authority was consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner. The same was not done, and the entirety of the enquiry report was accepted by the disciplinary authority by a cryptic order and the punished that was proposed was obviously based on the findings in the report including the proof of certain allegations which did not form part of the charges. The aforesaid clearly demonstrates that there has been complete non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority had only lent its signature by arriving at a finding without considering either the charges or the findings returned by the enquiry officer. There also appears to be no consideration of the response filed by the petitioner. Although, the findings had been relied on by the enquiry officer that the petitioner had abused his high post and sought to satisfy his sexual arrays in a manner unbecoming to his post, such charge also did not feature in any of the articles of charges leveled against the petitioner. Zubeda Khatun was never produced. The findings reached on by the enquiry officer is perverse and is not supported by any evidence. The entire enquiry proceeding in my view stands vitiated. Further considering the fact that more than a decade has elapsed, no fruitful purpose will be served in directing reconsideration of the enquiry officer’s report by the disciplinary authority as the writ petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation and the master servant relationship has come to an end. 14. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. 15. Let the copy of the records retained with the file be returned to the advocate-on-record for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5 against a receipt to be retained in the file. The original records, which are also being retained with Ms. Pandey, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5 are directed to be returned to the respondents. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.