JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. This writ application can be disposed of on a very short question of law.

2. Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the punishment order has been passed against the petitioner considering the departmental inquiry report, which is based on several documents, which were not exhibited as admittedly, no oral evidence was adduced by the Department. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, he submits that since no oral evidence has been adduced by the Department, the enquiry report and the punishment order is vitiated as those documents could not be said to be proved by the department in enquiry.

3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Central University of Jharkhand, submits that admittedly, the proceeding was ex-parte against the petitioner. In an ex-parte proceeding when in spite of service of notice, the petitioner did not chose to appear before the authority, the petitioner now cannot challenge the enquiry report, which is against him. He submits that the documents were