JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The affidavit-in-reply as filed on behalf of the writ petitioner today is taken on record.

2. In this writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or writs against the respondents/authorities for revoking and/or cancelling and/or rescinding the findings of the enquiry authority as communicated to him under cover of memo dated 15.10.2014, the findings of the disciplinary authority as communicated to him under cover of memo dated 30.03.2015 and the findings of the appellate authority dated July 18, 2016 who have concurrently held that the writ petitioner is guilty of the charges as framed against him and subsequently, he was awarded punishment.

3. In course of his submission, Mr. Bihani, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Ms. Bihani and Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocates for the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page no. 31 of the instant writ petition being the copy of the charge-sheet as issued against the writ petitioner by the respondents/authorities. Attention of this Court is also drawn to page no. 46 of the writ petition being a copy of the reply to the charge-sheet as submitted by the writ petitioner. In course of his submission, Mr. Bihani draws further attention of this Court to page nos. 61 to 135 of the writ petition being the copy of the enquiry proceeding and the findings of the enquiry officer.

4. Drawing attention to page no. 96 of the writ petition being the relevant portion of the enquiry report as submitted against the writ petitioner, it is argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that before the enquiry authority though positive evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence that the entire alleged defalcation was done by one Sri Konar but the enquiry authority for the reasons best known to him had not considered the said evidence of the D.Ws.

5. Drawing attention to page no. 102 of the writ petition being another part of the enquiry report, it is further submitted by Mr. Bihani that though the enquiry officer placed his reliance upon one Circular No. 62 (Exhibit 26) but either in course of the said enquiry proceeding or before initiation of said enquiry proceeding, the copy of the said circular was never forwarded to the writ petitioner. It is thus, submitted by Mr. Bihani that on proper appreciation of the enquiry report, it would reveal that the said enquiry report is vitiated for non-consideration of material evidence as well as for violation of principle of natural justice which are the fundamental principles to be followed by an enquiry officer dealing with an in-house inquiry proceeding and thus, the interference by this Court in judicial review is very much warranted.

6. In his next fold of submission, Mr. Bihani draws attention of this Court to page nos. 136 to 143 of the writ petition being the copy of the order dated March 30, 2015 as passed by the disciplinary authority. It is submitted by Mr. Bihani that on perusal of the said order of the disciplinary authority, it would reveal that the findings of the said appellate authority is based on surmises and conjectures inasmuch as the said disciplinary authority had not at all applied its independent mind while awarding punishment to the writ petitioner.

7. It is further submitted by Mr. Bihani that the appellate authority merely reproduced the versions of the enquiry authority in its finding dated March 30, 2015 and thus the finding of the said disciplinary authority suffers from unreasonableness and no proportionality is found in the said finding of the appellate authority which is mandatorily required while awarding punishment to the writ petitioner. Mr. Bihani further submits that the disciplinary authority while awarding punishment to the writ petitioner under cover of its memo dated March 30, 2015 was not supposed to examine the past service records of the writ petitioner inasmuch as it is not the case of the respondents/authorities that the writ