WA 52/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR J CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA This is an appeal against the judgment in WP(C) No.2827/03 dated 5-1-2007 by the unsuccessful petitioner. 2. The appellant was working as an Assistant-cum-clerk in the offic e of the 5th respondent. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the app ellant on 20-12-99 on the charge of unauthorized absence and an enquiry was cond ucted. By its report dated 20-3-01 the enquiry officer found the appellant guilt y of the charges of unauthorized absence. The disciplinary authority by its proc eedings dated 21-6-01 accepting the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer im posed a major penalty of removal of the appellant from service. 3. Aggrieved by the said decision the appellant filed an appeal bef ore the appellate authority without any success. Therefore, the appellant approa ched this court by way of the writ petition referred to above. 4. Mr KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that both the enquiry and the consequential decision by the disciplinary author ity are vitiated because of non application of mind to the relevant facts. The r elevant portion of the charge is extracted by the judgment under appeal which re ads as follows :- You have remain unauthorisedly absence without prior permission or sanction of leave or intimation thereof for the following days. i) In 1993 16 days ii) In 1997 76 days iii) In 1998 161 days iv) In 1999 189 days (Till August, 99) Details is described in the attached sheet. The learned counsel further argued that a copy of the enquiry re port was not furnished to the appellant/writ petitioner before imposing the puni shment of removal of the appellant and lastly the learned counsel submitted that while the enquiry was conducted on a charge that the appellant was absent for v arious period commencing from the year 1993 upto July, 1999 the final order of d ismissal takes into account the absence of the petitioner beyond the period indi cated in the charge and, therefore, the entire proceedings were illegal and arbi trary. 5. It appears from the record (Annexure-A4 dtd 19-11-99) signed b y the Senior Divisional Manager of the 1st respondent insurance company addresse d to the Regional Office of the said company at Guwahati that for some portion o f the period covered by the charge the petitioner was in fact sanctioned leave a nd for some period the sanction was pending consideration by the date of the cha rgesheet dated 20-12-99. The relevant portion of Annexure-A4 reads as follows :- We would like to further inform you that the employee’s attendances in the curr ent year has not improved. The no. unauthorized absence of the up to July, 99 in the current year as per BO Statement enclosed is 158 ‰ days. The total no. of d ays on account of unauthorized absence in the service period works (illegible) 4 11 ‰ days as detailed below : Year No. of days 1993 16 days : sanctioned vide RO letter dated 7.10.93 1997 76 days : sanctioned vide RO letter dated 25.2.99 1998 161 days : sanction awaited 1999 (up to July, 99) 158 ‰ days 6. It is obvious from the above that the entire disciplinary procee ding is vitiated for non application of mind coupled with the fact that the appe llant was not furnished with a copy of the enquiry officer’s report. We are of t he opinion that t he conclusion of the learned Judge by the judgment under appea l that no prejudice is caused to the appellant by virtue of the non-supply of th e enquiry officer’s report is not justified. 7. We, therefore, set aside the judgment under appeal and allow the writ petition by quashing the order of dismissal of the appellant dated 21-6-20 01 with liberty to the respondent company to institute a fresh enquiry into the conduct of the appellant for being unauthorisedly absent for long spell of time. Goes without saying, such an enquiry should be conducted at least this time str ictly in accordance with law. 8. Coming to the question of back wages of the appellant between th e date of her removal from service till the date of this order we are of the opi nion that as admittedly the appellant was unauthorisedly absent for a considerab le period of time, though not as indicated in the chargesheet, and also the fact that the appellant did not actually render service for the above mentioned peri od, the appellant is entitled only for half of the back wages. 9. We are distressed to see that while the appellant was indiscipli ned by absenting herself unauthorisedly the respondents are equally indiscipline d in not properly conducting the disciplinary proceeding giving scope for the ap pellant to successfully litigate her rights all through leading to loss to a Sta te controlled organization which in the real term means loss to the exchequer. W e, therefore, direct that the amount that is to be paid to the appellant as dire cted by this order is to be recovered by the 1st respondent company from the off icers who are responsible for framing the defective charges and the officers who are responsible for the final decision of removal of the appellant from service on such defective materials. 10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.