CWP(T) No. 12553/2008 31.08.2011 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A. G. with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G for the respondents. Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following reliefs:- “1) That the charge sheet, the inquiry report conducted against the applicant, may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2) That the inquiry report dated 25.11.2004 as stated in Annexure A-8, being based on no evidence and illegal, may kindly be quashed and set aside. 3) That the orders of penalty dated 10.6.2005 vide Annexure A-8 may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. In my considered view, case for interference is made out for the reason that the Inquiry Officer has adopted a procedure totally unknown to law, while arriving to the conclusion that loss to the Department to the tune of Rs.62,507/-, was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner. After the evidence of the Department (PWs) was closed on 3.9.2004, Inquiry Officer wrote letters to the Executive Engineer on 10.9.2004 and 2.11.2004 and based on the response thereto, came to the conclusion that loss caused to the State was on account of negligence of the petitioner. This correspondence was neither supplied to the petitioner nor was he informed about the same. Further, inquiry report was also not supplied to him calling upon his response to the same. Disciplinary authority issued the impugned order dated 10.6.2005 imposing penalty, even while passing this order fresh comments were called upon from the Executive Engineer in February, 2005, which material was also not brought to the notice of the petitioner. As such, disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated. View taken by me stands fortified by the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in State of Assam & anr. vs. Mahendra Kumar Das & Ors., (1970) 1 SCC 709, State Bank of India & Ors. vs. D.C. Agarwal & anr., (1993) 1 SCC 13, Govt. of A.P. & Ors. vs. A. Venkata Raidu , (2007) 1 SCC 338, Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570, & Managing Director ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074. 3. As such, impugned order dated 10.6.2005 (Annexure A-8) and inquiry report dated 25.11.2004 (Annexure-V) stand quashed. It is not in dispute that petitioner is still in service. Liberty granted to the respondents, if they so desire, to initiate fresh inquiry which shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. 4. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed off. August 31, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.