Anima Hazarika, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition is made against the order dated 1/4.4.2005 whereby and whereupon the penalty of reduction of two stages lower in the time scale of pay for a period of three years six months w.e.f. 2nd April, 2005 with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 23.8.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the order of Disciplinary Authority.

2. Before examining the legal issues raised by the Learned Counsel for the parties, it will be convenient to notice the facts of the case in brief.

The petitioner is a qualified engineer having obtained the Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mechanical Engineering in the year 1973 and thereafter he obtained the diploma in Material Management from the Indian Institute of Material Management, Mumbai. The petitioner initially joined the service in the year 1975 as a Junior Executive Trainee (Mechanical) in the erstwhile Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd., which was later on named as Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., (HFCL).

The petitioner while working as Chief Materials Manager, Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., (BVFCL), Namrup was served with a memorandum dated 11/16.8.2003 issued by the Chairman and Managing Director, the Disciplinary Authority whereby the respondents herein proposed to hold an enquiry under Rule 26 of the HFCL Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1981 ('CDA Rules'). The BVFCL, which, is an autonomous institution was separated from its erstwhile HFCL Ltd., after its constitution in the year 2002. However, the employees of BVFCL covered by CDA rules are governed by the HFCL Employees Rules, 1981. Accordingly as per aforesaid Rules, the substance of the imputations of misconduct along with the statement of articles of charges, a list of documents and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained was served on the petitioner directing him to submit his written statement of defence within 15 days stating whether he desires to be heard in person. The imputations of misconduct against which the disciplinary proceeding was proposed to be held reads as follows:

(i) That for the negligence of the petitioner the suppliers were able to evade payment of excise duties and sales taxes to the concerned authorities;

(ii) That the factory inspection report submitted by the Committee, of which the petitioner was also a member, was false as the factories did not exist at the location as written in the report.

3. On receipt of the articles of charges where imputation of misconduct was leveled against the petitioner, he submitted his written statement of defence on 29.8.2003 denying the charges and praying to drop the charges as the same were not maintainable.

4. The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the written statement of defence proceeded to hold the enquiry by appointing one Mr. MND Bordoloi, General Manager (Tech.) as the Enquiry Officer and one Mr. L. Medhi, senior Vigilance Officer as the Presenting Officer. The enquiry proceeding was held on 15.10.2003 whereby certain objections were raised in regard to certain documents which were not served upon the petitioner causing serious prejudice in effectively making his defence. The sitting in regard to charge No. 1 was held on 17.11.2003 whereby the delinquent denied the charge. The third sitting was held on 31.1.2004 wherein the deposition of the delinquent officer was recorded and thereafter some officers were examined and upon completion of the evidence, the Presenting Officer submitted his written presentation which would reveal that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the charges leveled against him.

5. However, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report whereby he came to the conclusion that the charge No. 1 leveled against the petitioner has not been established. In regard to charge No. II, the Enquiry Officer has found the same partially proved. Duri