Navin Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent Board.

2. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally by a resolution dated 30.11.1996 on the charge that materials were accepted beyond 15.1.1983 for personal wrongful gain to the petitioner and wrongful loss to the Board contrary to the Board Resolution dated 10.1.1983. The petitioner in the departmental proceeding took a specific objection that the Boards memo was never served on him.

3. The enquiry report reveals that no evidence was led by the management to rebut this argument of the petitioner. The enquiry officer concluded that there was no evidence on record that the order was communicated to the petitioner. The enquiry officer, however, proceeded on a general assumption to arrive at a conclusion that a subsequent telegram dated 7.3.1983 communicated to all must have been received by the petitioner also. On this followed the order of punishment withholding 5% of pension since the petitioner retired during the pendency of the appeal on 30.11.1996.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in his reply to the second show cause notice after submission of th