Page No.# 1/21 GAHC010096082025 2026:GAU-AS:9927 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2510/2025 SRI MASHARRAF HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE ABUL HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY, R/O- MERIMA APARTMENT , FLAT NO-103, AJANTA PATH, BYE LANE -ELORA PATH, P.O AND P.S- HATIGAON, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781038. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, , ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM PANJAVBARI GUWAHATI-37 4:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KAMRUP WEST DIVISION BAMUNIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR, S BORPUJARI,MR. R DEKA,MS T WAPANGLA,MRS P RAI Page No.# 2/21 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 20.07.2026 Heard Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 26.03.2025, by which a penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him by his Disciplinary Authority, on conclusion of a Departmental proceedings instituted against him. 3. The petitioner, herein, while working as a Forest Ranger, in the establishment of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-HoFF, was vide order dated 12.04.2018, posted on deputation as the In-Charge of Kulsi Range, under Kamrup West Forest Division, Bamunigaon. The petitioner, accordingly, complied with the said order dated 12.04.2018, and assumed the charge of the Kulsi Range, under Kamrup West Forest Division. Basing on allegation emanating with regard the manner in which the petitioner had discharged his duties in the said Range, a show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022, came to be issued to the petitioner instituting against him a Departmental Page No.# 3/21 proceeding. 02 (two) charges came to be framed against the petitioner vide the said show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022. The 1st charge pertains to an allegation of the petitioner misappropriating funds under the CAMPA scheme while the 2nd charge pertains to an allegation of the petitioner, remaining absent from his headquarters w.e.f. 18.07.2018, without any information and during the period of his absence having kept with himself official documents including Government Check Book. The petitioner on receipt of the said show-cause notice submitted his show- cause reply in the matter and on 25.02.2022, the said reply submitted by the petitioner being found to be not satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner vide a notification dated 12.08.2022, proceeded to direct for an enquiry with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner vide said show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022 and for the purpose appointed an Enquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and on conclusion of the enquiry, proceeded vide his Enquiry Report dated 30.01.2023 to hold that the Charge no.1, framed against the petitioner was partially proved, while the Charge No.2 was held to be not proved. A copy of the said Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner had also submitted his representation, thereon. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner on considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report as well as the representation submitted against the Enquiry Report by the petitioner, proceeded vide order dated Page No.# 4/21 26.03.2025, to impose upon the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service. In the order dated 26.03.2025, the petitioner was stated to be the In-Charge, Khanapara, Wildlife Range, under Guwahati Wildlife Division. However, the said portion of the order was rectified vide a corrigendum dated 07.04.2025, wherein, the petitioner was stated to be attached to the WPO Hills, Diphu. 4. Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, at the outset has contended that the Charge No.1 framed against the petitioner pertains to the allegation of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.15,54,750/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) from funds under the CAMPA Scheme, as was sanctioned for works in the Kulsi Range. By referring to the findings of the Enquiry Report, Mr. Khataniar, submits that the Enquiry Officer had not come to a definite conclusion, therein, with regard to the allegation of misappropriation of funds leveled against the petitioner. He submits that no quantification of the amount allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner also came to be made by the Enquiry Officer in his report. 5. Mr. N. J. Khataniar, by drawing the attention of this Court to the statements of the Departmental witnesses, adducing evidence during enquiry instituted against the petitioner, as is revealed from the daily order-sheets brought on record, submits that none of the witnesses had brought on record materials to establish that the petitioner, herein, had misappropriated any amount during his tenure as the In- Charge of Kulsi Range. Mr. Khataniar, submits that it is on account of the said position as emanating in the matter that the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report Page No.# 5/21 while dealing with Charge No.1, had required the DFO, Kamrup West Territorial Forest Division, to separately assess the exact amount of loss caused to the Government, due to commissions and omissions of the Charged Officer, so that the same can be recovered from him. Mr. Khataniar, submits that the said stipulation as made by the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report would go to reveal that there was infact no material brought on record in the enquiry to establish the Charge No.1 leveled against the petitioner vide the show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022. 6. Mr. N. J. Khataniar, has further submitted that the Enquiry Officer with regard to Charge No.1 had held that the same was partially proved, however a perusal of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the Charge No.1, framed against the petitioner would go to reveal that it is not discernable, therefrom, as to what was held to have been partially proved in relation to the Charge No.1 framed against the petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the Charge No.1 is clearly vague and would mandate an interference from this Court. 7. Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that in the statement of allegation annexed to the show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022, there are references to Enquiries being conducted in the matter with regard to the allegation of misappropriation of funds by the petitioner and in the list of documents, reports submitted in pursuance to such Enquiry have also been incorporated, however, he submits that the said reports were not exhibited in the enquiry through any Departmental witnesses and the authors of such report Page No.# 6/21 were also not examined in the enquiry as Departmental witnesses. He further submits that none of the witnesses who had deposed in the enquiry had referred to such reports, nor had brought the same on record during their deposition. He submits that the said reports not being exhibited in the enquiry through the deposition of any witnesses, the evidences adduced during the enquiry by the 04 (four) Departmental witnesses, appearing, therein, having also not brought on record any material with regard to the Charge No.1, the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the purported misappropriation of money by the petitioner, herein, is so based on surmises and conjectures. Mr. N. J. Khataniar, has further submitted that the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report with regard to Charge No.1 had not recorded any finding to the effect that the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner was infact misappropriated either in full or in part by the petitioner, herein. 8. Mr. N. J. Khataniar, submits that the Enquiry Officer having held that the Charge No.2, leveled against the petitioner vide the show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022, to have been not established and the said position not having been disagreed to by the Disciplinary Authority, no further submission would be mandated to be made in connection with the Charge No.2, so framed against the petitioner vide the said show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022. 9. Mr. N. J. Khataniar, thereafter, by referring to the order dated 26.03.2025, has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority on a superficial examination of the Enquiry Report, had proceeded to hold that the Charge No.1 leveled against the Page No.# 7/21 petitioner vide the said show-cause notice stood established and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. He submits that the conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority vide the order dated 26.03.2025, to be clearly perverse, inasmuch as, there is no findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer of the Charge No.1 framed against the petitioner of having misappropriated an amount of Rs.15,08,103/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eight Thousand One Hundred Three), to have been established in the enquiry. 10. In the above premises, Mr. N. J. Khataniar, submits that the Enquiry Report as well as the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 26.03.2025, would mandate an interference from this Court. 11. Per contra Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, appearing for the Respondents, has submitted from the materials coming on record during the enquiry it was established that the petitioner during his tenure as the In- Charge of Kulsi Range misappropriated amounts sanctioned to the said Range under the CAMPA funds, by not utilizing the amounts so sanctioned in terms of the CAMPA norms and also not executing works for which it was so sanctioned. He submits that there being materials coming on record with regard to the commission of misconduct in the matter by the petitioner, this Court would not proceed to re- assess the evidences adduced before the Enquiry Officer and substitute its views in place of the views arrived at in the matter by the Disciplinary Authority on an appreciation of the evidences coming on record during the enquiry held against the petitioner. He submits that the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer in the matter Page No.# 8/21 having been so drawn after affording to the petitioner all due opportunity to place his defence in the matter and the finding so recorded not being perverse and there being some evidence highlighting the commission of misconduct alleged against the petitioner, more particularly under Charge No.1, this Court would not proceed to interfere with the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 26.03.2025. 12. Having made the said submissions, Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, has submitted that in the event, this Court finds that the enquiry instituted against the petitioner was vitiated on any count, this Court, considering the serious nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, would be pleased to remit back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed de-novo enquiry against the petitioner from the stage from which the defect had so occurred. 13. The learned counsel for the Respondent in support of his submissions had relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Rajit Singh (2022 INSC 327). 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 15. From the materials on record it is revealed that the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry had only found the Charge No.1 leveled against the petitioner vide the show-cause dated 15.02.2022, to have been established and the Charge No.2 to Page No.# 9/21 have not been established and accordingly, the consideration in the present order is made only in respect of the Charge No.1. 16. The charge framed against the petitioner vide the show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022 as Charge No.1 being relevant is extracted, hereinbelow; “1.Illegal drawal and misappropriation of Govt. money for wrongful personal gain. While you were Range Officer, Kulsi Range on deputation temporarily, you had drawn an amount of Rs 15,54,750.00 (Rs fifteen lacs fifty four thousand seven hundred fifty only) under CAMPA scheme from HDFC bank Bijoynagar branch. Out of the above amount you actually spent three percent i.e. Rs 46657.00 in field work, you misappropriated the rest amount Rs 15,08,103.00 (Rs fifteen lakhs eight thousand one hundred three only) for your personal gain as detailed in the statement of allegation.” 17. A perusal of the Charge No.1, as framed against the petitioner vide the show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022, would go to reveal that it was alleged, therein, that the petitioner had drawn an amount of Rs.15,54,750/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) from funds under the CAMPA Scheme, sanctioned to the said Range. It was alleged that out of the said amount so drawn by him he had only spent an amount of Rs.46,657.00 (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Seven) for field works and had misappropriated the remaining amount for his personal gain. The manner in which the petitioner had withdrawn the said amount was set out in the “Statement of the Allegations” as appended to the said show-cause notice. In the statement of the allegation, it was further alleged that from a field verification conducted in the matter, it was found Page No.# 10/21 that out of the total expenditure of Rs.15,54,750/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty), projected to have been made by the petitioner, 97% of the expenditure was found to be false, inasmuch as, there was no trace of any work being executed by the petitioner in the Range out of the amount so withdrawn by him. It was further alleged that on a scrutiny of the cash account, it was found that he had the charged muster roll for engaging daily labours. However, in the muster roll there was no signature or thumb impression of the daily labours so engaged. Further, there was no address of the labours engaged and the labours mentioned could not be traced out. Accordingly, it was alleged that the petitioner had created false muster roll for misappropriation of the money. It was further alleged that in the muster roll, there was no signature of a Supervising Officer and the petitioner himself had signed as the Supervising and the Disbursing Officer, which was not permissible. 18. In the enquiry instituted against the petitioner with regard to the charges framed against him vide the show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022, it is seen that the 04 (four) Departmental witnesses had deposed, therein. This Court had perused the extract of the statements of the said Departmental witnesses, deposing in the enquiry which were recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the daily order-sheets of the enquiry, which has been brought on record in the present writ petition. 19. Suresh Sarma, Range Officer, who has assumed charge of the said Range after the petitioner had released, therefrom, had deposed in the Enquiry as Departmental Witness No.1. In his deposition Suresh Sarma, had deposed that he Page No.# 11/21 had signed Form No.22, bilaterally with the petitioner on 01.08.2018. Form No.22 pertains to taking and handing over charge of a post by the Officer who was released and the Officer who transferred to the post, in question. From the materials brought on record, it is not revealed that Suresh Sarma, had made any deposition with regard to the allegation of misappropriation of the CAMPA amounts drawn by the petitioner during his tenure as the In-Charge of Kulsi Range. 19.1. Ajit Kumar Choudhury, a Forester Grade-I, had deposed in the enquiry as Departmental Witness No.2. During his deposition he had deposed that he was the In-Charge of Kukurmara Beat during the incumbency of the petitioner as the In- Charge of Kulsi Range. He submits that he was entrusted by the petitioner with the duty of finalizing of CAMPA accounts of Kulsi Range. However, he not having first hand knowledge of the works executed in the field, he was unable to prepare the CAMPA account related to the works in time due to non-receipt of the muster roll from the petitioner. He also deposed that he was show-caused in the matter by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Departmental Witness No.2 had also not deposed during the enquiry anything with regard to the allegation of misappropriation of money by the petitioner. 19.2. Tapan Kumar Sarma, a Forest Guard of Kulsi Range, had deposed in the enquiry as Departmental Witness No.3. During his deposition he had deposed that he was posted at a location within the Range and was familiar with the works carried out both by the predecessor of the petitioner as well as the petitioner. He had further deposed that during the incumbency of the predecessor of the Page No.# 12/21 petitioner, chain link fencing of a length of approximately 1,230 RMs was erected and during the incumbency of the petitioner, chain link fencing a length of approximately 1,100 RMs was erected. He also deposed that he was assigned the duty of supervising the fencing and Sal Coppice Regeneration Work. However, he had expressed his inability to supervise the work, in question, citing his inexperience. From the extract of the deposition of Departmental Witness No.3, this Court does not find any material being brought on record with regard to the charge framed against the petitioner of having misappropriated CAMPA funds as drawn by him for execution of works in the Kulsi Range. 19.3. Md. Saheb Ali, a Forest Guard, deposed in the Enquiry as Departmental Witness No.4. Md. Saheb Ali, during his deposition reiterated the depositions made by Tapan Sarma (Departmental Witness No.3) of the works executed by the petitioner and his predecessor in the Range. The said witness further deposed that he was also asked by the petitioner to look after the fencing and Sal Coppice Regeneration works during the month of June, 2018. However, in absence of any written order, being issued to the said effect he had not attended the said work. Said Md. Saheb Ali, had also not deposed anything with regard to the allegation of misappropriation of CAMPA funds by the petitioner. 20. Having noticed the evidences adduced by the witnesses deposing in the enquiry, this Court would now examine findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after noticing the projections made by the Presenting Officer, as well Page No.# 13/21 as the petitioner, herein, had also noticed the evidences adduced by the Departmental Witnesses deposing in the enquiry. Thereafter, on analyzing the said materials coming on record, the Enquiry Officer had recorded the following findings; “There seem to be several incongruities in the Statement of Allegations accompanying the charges, which are as follows: (1) The amount that is supposed to have been misappropriated by the Charged Officer is sometimes described as Rs.15,08,103/-, and at other times as a cumulative of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- (a total of Rs.6,50,000/-) which he was asked to deposit back into the HDFC Bank Account by the DFO. The entire amount of Rs.8,99,750/- spent by the Accused Officer in procuring Gl netting is seen to have been held as misappropriation in addition to the amounts of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/-. If this is the case, then the total amount misappropriated works out to be Rs.15,49,750/-, The word "misappropriation" has a connotation of personal gain, and the charge also mentions the element of personal gain. But the Statement of Allegations that is enclosed with the charges does not clearly establish where exactly the misappropriation had taken place. It can be assumed to some degree that the muster-roll payments made by the Accused Officer may not be authentic in the absence of the details and addresses of the labourers engaged, and because the Accused Officer himself had functioned as the executing and supervising officer for the works, more so in view of the fact that two Assistant Conservator of Forests have held that only 840 meters of Goat Proof Fencing was erected. However, the report of the Range Officer, Kulsi dated 30.11.2022 mentioned that approximately 2,400 RMs of Chain Linked Fencing was erected, and the Kulsi Range Headquarters still had stock of 90 bundles of Chain Linked Fencing, each measuring 15 RMs (2,400 RMs + 1,350 RMS = 3,750 RMS). If it is assumed that the Charged Officer erected about 1,100 RMs of the Chain Linked Fencing and purchased another 1,350 RMs of the same material (which is lying as on date at the Kulsi Range Office), it turns out that he had procured nearly 2,450 RMs of Chain Linked Fencing, and not Goat Proof Fencing as claimed in their Enquiry Report by the two ACFS. (ii) At places, the charge holds 97% of work claimed by the Accused Officer as false. At other places, it says that 840 meters of Goat Proof Fencing was purchased by him instead of Chain Link Fence. Somewhere else, it says that a Chain Link Fence was purchased. (iii) The charge says Rs.5,000/- was misappropriated by the Accused Officer, even as it mentions about a voucher where item-wise description of the Page No.# 14/21 expenditure made (vinyl print, pasting with signboard, flex) was given.” 21. A perusal of the said findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, would go to reveal that the Enquiry Officer had not come to a definite finding with regard to the allegations of misappropriation of amount drawn by the petitioner from the CAMPA funds, rather the Enquiry Officer had only highlighted the inconsistencies existing in the “Statement of Allegations” in this connection. With regard to the allegation leveled against the petitioner in the “Statement of Allegation” annexed to the show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022, the Enquiry Officer had proceeded to draw a conclusion that it can be assumed to some degree that the muster roll payments made by the petitioner may not be authentic in absence of details and address of the labours engaged and also on account of the fact that the petitioner had functioned as the Executing and the Supervising Officer in the works. The said conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer is not a definite conclusion with regard to the said allegation leveled against the petitioner in this connection. The Enquiry Officer thereafter, noticed the report of 02 (two) Assistant Forest Conservator of Forest, with regard to the execution of works by the petitioner and proceeded to conclude that the petitioner had erected around 1,100 RMs of chain linked fencing and purchased another 1,350 RMs of the same material which was lying as on the date at Kulsi Range. It was further recorded that the petitioner had procured nearly 2450 RMs Page No.# 15/21 of chain linked fencing and not Goat proofing fencing as claimed by the Assistant Forest Conservator of Forest in their Enquiry Report. It is to be noted that the said Assistant Forest Conservators of Forest, were not examined during the enquiry, however, it is seen that the reports submitted by them were taken note of. Even if the said reports was taken note of, no definite finding was recorded by the Enquiry Officer, therefrom, that the petitioner had infact misappropriated money without executing the works for which the amounts under CAMPA fund was drawn by him. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer noticed, that in the “Statement of Allegation”, it was held that 97% of works claimed to have been executed by the petitioner was false and thereafter, noticed that in the said “Statement of Allegation”, at some places, it was projected that 840 meters of goat proof fencing was purchased by the petitioner instead of chain linked fence whereas, in some other places, it was projected that chain linked fencing was purchased. Accordingly, with regard to the allegation of the petitioner not having executed 97% of the works, no definite conclusion is found to have been drawn by the Enquiry Officer in the matter. Similarly, with regard to the allegation of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) by the petitioner, Enquiry Officer by noticing the same has recorded a finding to the effect that there was a voucher where item wise description of the expenditure made was given. Basing on the said conclusion, the Enquiry Officer, Page No.# 16/21 proceeded to hold that the Charge No.1, was partially proved against the petitioner. 22. This Court has carefully perused the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer in the matter and finds that it is not permissible to discern, thereform, that the allegation leveled against the petitioner of having misappropriated an amount of Rs.15,54,750/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) and/or any other amount was established in the enquiry. The said position in all probability arose on account of the fact that none of the Departmental witnesses deposing in the enquiry had brought on record any material to establish the Charge No.1 leveled against the petitioner nor the allegation forming the basis, thereof. 23. The Enquiry Officer while holding the Charge No.1 to have been partially proved has not recorded any finding to highlight as to what was exactly found to have been partially proved, inasmuch as, from the perusal of the findings so recorded by the Enquiry Officer, no such determination of the amount actually misappropriated by the petitioner is found to have been made. 24. The fact that there was no quantification of the amount misappropriated by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer, is further established from the following stipulation made in the Enquiry Report; Page No.# 17/21 “The DFO, Kamrup West Territorial Forest Division needs to separately assess the exact amount of loss caused to the Government due to commissions and omissions by the Charged Officer, so that the same can be recovered from the latter.” 25. A perusal of the said stipulation made by the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report, would go to reveal that he had required the DFO, Kamrup West Territorial Division, to separately assess the exact amount of loss caused to the Government, due to commissions and omissions made by the Charged Officer, so that the same can be recovered from the latter. The Charged No.1 being specific to that of the misappropriation being made by the petitioner of funds drawn by him under the CAMPA Scheme, it was the duty of the Enquiry Officer to record definite findings either in the affirmative and/or in the negative with regard to the said charge framed against the petitioner. The same having not being done, this Court from the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, holds that the Charge No.1, cannot be held to have been established against the petitioner in the matter. 26. As noticed, hereinabove, Charge No.2, having being held to have been not proved, no further discussion, thereon, is mandated from this Court. 27. Having drawn the said conclusion, with regard to the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, this Court would now consider the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner in the Page No.# 18/21 order dated 26.03.2025. The Disciplinary Authority after noticing the submission of the Enquiry Report by the Enquiry Officer as well as the submission of a representation against the same by the petitioner, herein, had proceeded to arrive at a conclusion that a penalty of dismissal from service along with recovery of the pecuniary loss caused to the Government amounting to Rs.15,08,103.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eight Thousand One Hundred Three), was to be imposed upon the petitioner. The proposed penalty now sought to be imposed upon the petitioner was thereafter, forwarded to the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) for its opinion. The APSC vide its endorsement dated 31.07.2024, had concurred with the penalty that was proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner. Thereafter, it is seen that the Departmental Authority after examining the matter and also holding that the petitioner had misappropriated Government funds amounting to Rs.15,08,103/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eight Thousand One Hundred Three), for his own personal gain, proceeded to impose upon the petitioner penalty of dismissal from service. The conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority in the order dated 26.03.2025, that the petitioner had misappropriated Government Fund amounting to Rs.15,08,103/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eight Thousand One Hundred Three), for his personal gain is not a conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Authority basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, inasmuch as, there is no such finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer in Page No.# 19/21 his Enquiry Report of the petitioner misappropriating an amount of Rs.15,08,103/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eight Thousand One Hundred Three). 28. The Disciplinary Authority having not issued any disagreement note in the matter and having only drawn his conclusion basing on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report, such conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority in the order dated 26.03.2025, is clearly perverse rendering the order dated 26.03.2025 and the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner, thereon, to be null and void. 29. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, the impugned order dated 26.03.2025, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner in the considered view of this Court, would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the same stands set aside. Further, the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, for reasons cited, hereinabove, also stands set aside 30. A interference with the order dated 26.03.2025 and the Enquiry Report, in the normal course would also have lead to an interference with the show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022, issued to the petitioner in the matter. However, considering the nature of allegation leveled against the petitioner, as well as the manner in which the Enquiry was so conducted against the petitioner, and no attempt being made therein, by the Departmental Authorities to have the materials available with them Page No.# 20/21 exhibited in the enquiry in the manner required, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be held to be not blameworthy in the matter. Accordingly, the enquiry being found to be vitiated, this Court is of the considered view that the matter would now be required to be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner with a direction to institute a de-novo enquiry from the stage of appointment of an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer for enquiring into both the charges framed against the petitioner vide the show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022. 31. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner is directed to issue appropriate orders appointing an Enquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer in the matter and to conclude the proceedings instituted against the petitioner vide the show-cause notice dated 15.02.2022, within a period of 06 (six) months from the date of a receipt of a certified copy of this order. 32. The petitioner having been imposed with a penalty of dismissal from service and the same having been interfered with by this Court, the petitioner would now be required to be re-instated in his services. However, noticing the fact, this Court had not exonerated the petitioner from the charges framed against him and having directed for conduct of a de-novo enquiry in the matter, this Court directs the Respondent Authorities to place the petitioner under suspension on his re-instatement Page No.# 21/21 in service. The petitioner shall be deemed to have remained under suspension w.e.f. 26.03.2025, and the petitioner shall be authorized his substantive allowances in accordance with law w.e.f.26.03.2025. The petitioner shall continue to remain under suspension till the conclusion of the Departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner now being required to be proceeded with by this Court from the stage of appointment of an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. 33. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant