Mohit Kumar Shah, J.

The petitioner by way of the present petition has prayed for quashing of the order of dismissal contained in Office Order No. 26/2001-02 dated 22.08.2001, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. The appellate order dated 20.10.2001 has also been challenged. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 07.09.1996, ex parte enquiry report dated 08.05.1997 and for directing the respondents to pay the back wages with effect from 22.08.2001 till the date of reinstatement.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the services of the respondent Bihar State Financial Corporation in the year 1978 as a Project Officer and subsequently he was promoted as the Deputy Manger in the year 1982 and prior to his dismissal, the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager, Bihar State Financial Corporation Limited at Munger. A charge sheet was issued against the petitioner, contained in Memo dated 07.09.1996 by the then Managing Director i.e. the respondent no. 2 on the allegation that the petitioner had conducted the pre-sanction site inspection of M/s. Laloo Industries, Siwan, Khurda, Saran on 11.10.1988 of Plot No. 1235 but had reported to the office about another plot bearing No. 1083 at Mouja Belsara, Tola Jagatia under Thana No. 152 and thus permitted the promoter to defraud the Corporation causing a loss of Rs. 5.30 lakhs approximately since after the sanction of a loan of Rs. 2.80 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 2,55,700/- was disbursed which swelled up to a sum of Rs. 5,30,350/- as on 29.02.1996.

3. The Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report dated 08.05.1997 wherein the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges as stated in the charge sheet issued on 07.09.1996. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with the enquiry report vide letter dated 26.05.1997, which was replied to by the petitioner herein and then the petitioner had submitted a final reply to the aforesaid show cause notice vide letter dated 25.11.1997. The disciplinary authority i.e. the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation had then passed the order of punishment dated 22.08.2001, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from the service of the Corporation with immediate effect. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal which has also been dismissed by an order dated 20.10.2001.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the enquiry report, has submitted that the said enquiry report is perfunctory and perverse inasmuch as though the charges levelled against the petitioner were regarding the petitioner having conducted pre-sanction site inspection of M/S Laloo Industries regarding plot no. 1235 but reported to the office regarding plot no. 1083, resulting in loss to the Corporation on account of the loan advanced to M/S Laloo Industries having become unsecured but the enquiry officer has instead submitted his report, not with regard to the said charge, but with a new story regarding construction of the factory at a different plot which has not been mortgaged to the Corporation. It is further submitted that not a single witness has been produced by the prosecution, hence no witness was examined by the Enquiry Officer and since no oral evidence has been examined, consequently the documents have not been proved, hence the same could not have been taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772), Paragraphs No. 27, 28 and 29 whereof are reproduced herein below :

27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet