ORDER
H.L. Dattu, J.
1. Petitioner, who is working as Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale - I, in the respondent Bank is before this Court aggrieved by the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 27.2.1997 in confirming the orders passed by the disciplinary authority dated 31.1.1995. By the said order, the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank has imposed a punishment of 'reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale I' as envisaged under Rule No. 49(e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules and further, has treated the period spent by the delinquent officer under suspension from 18.8.1990 till the date of his reinstatement as suspension only.
2. Brief facts are:
Petitioner had joined the services of the respondent Bank on 28.6.1970 as C1erk. Subsequently, he was promoted as Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale I on 1.10.1979. During the period from June 1986 to June 1988, petitioner was working as Field Officer at ITI Ancillary Industrial Estate, Mahadevapura Branch, Bangalore, of the respondent Bank.
3. While petitioner was working as Field Officer of the Mahadevapura Branch of the respondent Bank, he was kept under suspension by an order passed by the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank dated 17.8.1990 on the ground that certain disciplinary enquiry proceedings are contemplated against him. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, petitioner had filed an appeal dated 7.8.1991 before the appellate authority and the same came to be rejected by the appellate authority on 26.9.1991.
4. Thereafter, a charge memo came to be issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank dated 13.2.1992 interalia alleging certain irregularities said to have been committed by him while working as Field Officer at ITI Ancillary Industrial Estate, Mahadevapura Branch, Bangalore, during the period June 1986 to June 1988. The charge memo issued by the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank dated 13.2.1992 is as under:
'I. you recommended and obtained Sanction from the Branch Manager, credit limits to various units as detailed hereunder and permitted excess drawings on an ongoing basis and you did not:
a) report to controlling office the excess drawings permitted;
b) conduct periodical inspections as per extant instructions.
Name of the unit
Date of Sanction
Facility
Limit
(Rs. In lacs)
M/sFotografiks
29.1.87
CC
Rs. 325
M/sBindu Enterprises
26.12.87
CC
Rs. 3.70
TI
Rs. 1.50
(ii) You recommended and obtained sanction of credit limits to the undernoted units:
Name of the unit
Date of Sanction
Facility
Limit
(Rs. In lacs)
M/sJayco Packaging & Plastics
28.9.87
CC
1.30
MTI
0.37
M/sNaveen Traders
16.2.87
CC
0.20
M/sShakthi Auto Mobiles
7.5.87
CC
0.20
M/sBindu Enterprises
7.7.87
CC
0.20
M/sVinayaka Electricals
9.5.88
MTI
1.50
You did not
a) Submit control return for having sanctioned the advances;
b) conduct periodical Inspections as per extant instructions.
iii) You recommended and obtained sanction from the Branch Manager cash credit limit of. Rs. 3.70 lacs and a Term Loan of' Rs. 58,500/- to M/s Bindu Enterprises even though, you were aware that
a) the unit would be operating from the same premises where M/s Tirumala Engineering Industries, a unit financed by the branch and now defunct; was functioning;
b) The unit would be using all the assets of the defunct unit, thereby preventing the Bank from initiating action against the defaulting unit for recovery of the dues.
(iv) You had recommended and got the sanction of credit limit of Rs. 1.70 lacs on 9.1.1988 to M/s Saraswathi Fabricators situated at Peenya Industrial Estate, even though:
a) the unit was located away from your area of operation;
b) the sanction of the advance was not reported to controlling office:
c) formalities for creating equitable mortgage over immovable property offered as collateral security were not completed.
(v) You recommended and obtained sanction of advance to M/s ACE Photo Reprographers and M/s Sangeetha Refreshments, both from Shivajinagar, eventhough:
a) the units were non-existent and the particulars furnished are fictitious, as another firm M/s All Arts Co., was operating from the same premises;
b) the sanction of these advances were not reported to controlling office.
c) Periodical Inspection of the units were not conducted.
(vi) You had recommended and obtained sanction on 20.5.1987 cash credit limit of Rs. 1.00 lac to M/s Rajeswari Enterprises and you
a) did not submit control return;
b) Periodical inspections were not carried out;
c) formalities for creation of equitable mortgage over immovable property stipulated as precondition for sanction of limit was not completed.
(vii) You recommended and obtained sanction of a MTI of Rs. 1.50 lacs on 9.5.88 to M/s Shalini Restaurant, Jayanagar, eventhough:
a) the unit was located at Jayanagar and outside the area of operation of the branch:
b) the unit had borrowings from Central Bank of India, AvenueRoad, Bangalore;
c) sanction of the loan was not reported to controlling office and
d) Periodical inspections were not conducted.
(viii) You had recommended and obtained sanction of credit limits to M/s Farooq Tanning, Kacharakanahalli, eventhough, the unit was located outside the area of operation of the branch and
a) sanction of the limit was not reported to controlling office:
b) Periodical inspections of the unit were not conducted.
By your above acts mentioned in paragraphs I (i) to (viii) above,
a) failed to comply with the extant instructions with regard to sanction and follow up of advances;
b) failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank;
c) did not discharge your duties with utmost diligence and integrity and thereby violated Rules 32 (I) and 32(4) of captioned servicerules.
II. You had purchased, in October, 1987, agricultural land measuring 21.36 acres in Hudgoor village, Gowribidanur Taluk, and got it registered in your name for a nominal amount, using the influence of Sri Ramamurthy of M/s Bindu Enterprises, who are enjoying credit facilities with the branch and you failed to declare to the Bank the purchase of immovable property as per extant instructions.
By your acts mentioned in paragraph (II) above, you placed yourself under pecuniary obligations to the party. You thereby violated Rules 32(I), 32(4) and 44 of captioned service rules.'
5. Along with the charge memo, petitioner was also served with the statement of imputations. It is as under:
'STATEMENT OF IMPUTATIONS OF MISCONDUCT ON WHICH THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST SRI A.G.D. REDDY. OFFICER JMGS. ARE BASED:
The above named official while working as Field Officer at ITI Anc. Industrial Estate, Mahadevapura Branch, during the period from June 1986 to June 1988, committed the following serious irregularities acts of misconduct:
I (i): The Official recommended and obtained sanction from the Branch Manager working capital limits to various units as detailed hereunder and permitted excess drawings on an ongoing basis and did not
a) report to controlling office the excess drawings permitted;
b) conduct periodical inspections as per extant instructions.
Name of the unit
Date of Sanction
Facility
Limit
(Rs. In Lacs)
M/s Fotografiks
29.1.87
CC
Rs.3.25
M/s Bindu Enterprises
26.12.87
CC
TI
Rs. 3.70
Rs. 1.50
(ii) The official recommended and obtained sanction of credit limits to the undernoted units:
Name of the unit
Date of Sanction
Facility
Limit
(Rs. In lacs)
M/sJayco Packaging & Plastics
28.9.87
CC
MTI
1.30
0.37
M/sNaveen Traders
16.2.87
CC
0.20
M/sShakthi Auto Mobiles
7.5.87
CC
0.20
M/sBindu Enterprises
7.7.87
CC
0.20
M/sVinayaka Electricals
9.5.88
MTI
1.50
He did not
a) submit control return for having sanctioned the advances.
b) Conduct periodical inspections as per extant instructions.
(iii) He recommended and obtained sanction from the Branch Manager cash credit limit of Rs. 3.70 lacs and a Term Loan of Rs. 58,500/- to M/s Bindu Enterprises eventhough, he was aware that;
a) the unit would be operating from the same premises where M/s Tirumala Engineering Industries, a unit financed by the branch and now defunct; was functioning;
b) the unit would be using all the assets of the defunct unit, thereby preventing the Bank from initiating action against the defaulting unit for recovery of the dues.
(iv) He had recommended and obtained sanction of credit limits of Rs. 1.70 lacs on 9.1.88 to M/s Saraswathi Fabricators, situated at Peenya Industrial Estate, eventhough:
a) the unit is located away from the area of operation of the Branch:
b) the sanction of the advance was not reported to controlling office;
c) formalities for creating equitable mortgage over immovable property offered as collateral security were not completed.
(v) He recommended and obtained sanction of advances to M/s ACE Photo Reprographers and M/s Sangeetha Refreshments, both from Shivajinagar, eventhough:
a) the units were non-existent and the particulars furnished were fictitious as another firm M/s All Arts Co., was operating from the same premises;
b) the sanction of these advances were not reported to controlling office;
c) periodical inspection of the units were not carried out.
(vi) The official recommended and the obtained sanction on 20.5.87 cash credit limit of Rs. 100 lac to M/s Rajeswari Enterprises and he;
a) did not submit control return to controlling office;
b) periodical inspections were not carried out;
c) formalities for creation of equitable mortgage over immovable property stipulated as a precondition for sanction of limit was not completed.
(vii) He recommended and obtained sanction of a medium term loan of Rs. 1.50 lacs on 9.5.88 to M/s Shalini Restaurant, Jayanagar, eventhough:
a) the unit was located at Jayanagar and outside the area of operation of the branch.
b) The unit had borrowings from Central Bank of India, Avenue Road, Bangalore.
c) Sanction of the loan was not reported to controlling office and
d) Periodical inspections were not conducted.
(viii) He had recommended and obtained sanction of credit limits to M/s Farooq Tanning, Kachrakanahalli, eventhough, the unit was located outside the area of operation of the Branch and
a) Sanction of the limit was not reported to controlling office;
b) periodical inspections were not conducted.
II. The official had purchased in October 1987 agricultural land measuring 21.36 acres in Hudgoor village, Gowribidanur Taluk and got it registered in his name for a nominal amount, using the influence of Sri Ramamurthy of M/s Bindu Enterprises, who were enjoying credit facilities with the Branch and the official had not declared to the Bank the purchase of immovable property as required under the service rules.'
6. After receipt of the charge memo, petitioner had filed his detailed reply by his reply letter dated 21.4.1992 denying the allegations made in the charge memo. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank had appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations contained in the charge memo.
Before the enquiry officer, the management had examined seven witnesses, namely, PW.1 to P.W.7 and through them, they had also got marked twenty-four (24) documents, namely, MEX. 1 to MEX. 24 in support of their allegations in the charge memo. The delinquent employee officer had not examined himself but had produced thirty (30) documents, namely, PEX.1 to PEX.30 in support of his case and claim. The enquiry officer after completion of the enquiry proceedings and on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, is of the view that petitioner is guilty of some of the charges alleged in the charge memo. With these findings, he submits his report dated 23.8.1993 and records of the enquiry proceedings to the disciplinary authority.
7. The disciplinary authority, as required under the Regulations of the respondent Bank, had issued a second show cause notice to the employee officer along with the report of the enquiry officer, interalia directing him to show cause why the findings of the enquiry officer should not be accepted and major penalty should not be imposed on him. After receipt of the notice and the report of the enquiry officer, petitioner had filed his detailed reply, by his reply letter dated 16.9.1993. In that, he states that the enquiry officer has not conducted the enquiry proceedings in accordance with law. Further, the petitioner points outthe procedural irregularities committed by the enquiry officer during the enquiry proceedings and various discrepancies and unreasonable assumptions of the enquiry officer in the report, while finding him guilty of some of the charges alleged against him in the charge memo.
8. Pursuant to the receipt of the reply filed by the delinquent officer, the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank, disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, once again issues a fresh notice dated 4.10.1993 along with his tentative opinion, calling upon the delinquent officer to make his submissions, if any. The delinquent officer by his reply letter dated 15.10.1993 had requested the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank to drop the enquiry proceedings initiated against him.
After receipt of the reply filed by the delinquent officer, the disciplinary authority of the respondent Bank, proceeds to frame the impugned order dated 31.1.1995. In that, he has imposed a penalty of 'reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale I' as provided under Rule 49(C) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules and further has treated the period spent by the delinquent officer under suspension from 18.8.1990 till the date of his reinstatement as suspension only. The order made by the disciplinary authority is as under.
'I refer to the charge sheet bearing No. DIS/CON/43 dated 13.2.1992 served on you and the enquiry ordered to enquire into the charges levelled against you. The findings of the Inquiring Authority were provided to you and your submissions were also called for where the disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the enquiry officer.
2. The disciplinary authority has considered the findings of the Inquiring Authority, and a copy of the note containing his recommendations is enclosed.
3. I have considered the records pertaining to the enquiry and concur with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. It is observed that you had recommended and got sanctioned many a credit limit from the Branch Manager to various units wherein excess drawings were allowed on an ongoing basis without any report to the Controlling Office or any meaningful inspection of the unit. The control forms for the limits sanctioned at the branch level and units handled by you, were not sent to the Controlling Office in quite a few cases. You have also gone beyond the area of operation of the branch, which has been proved in the enquiry. All these actions have resulted in the accounts going bad and the Bank had to sustain sizeable losses.
4. Although the charges proved against you are of serious nature, I have taken a lenient view by taking into consideration your past record and service and have decided to impose upon you the penalty of 'bringing down your basic pay to the lowest stage in the Scale I applicable to you' in terms of Rule No. 49(e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, read with Rule 50(I)(ii) ibid. I order accordingly. I also order that the period during which you were placed under suspension be treated as such. I further order that the punishment will take effect from the date you receive this letter and the revised substantive salary payable to you from the date of receipt of this letter will be Rs. 2,100/- PM. Your future increments will become due on the same date as above, every year.
5. In view of the imposition of the punishment and simultaneous reinstatement from the date of receipt of this letter by you, your services are placed at this disposal of the Dy. General Manager, Bangalore Module. You are, therefore, required to report to him for further orders.'
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the delinquent officer had filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by his order dated 27.2.1997, as usual, had confirmed the orders made by the disciplinary authority dated 31.1.1995. The operative portion of the order made by the appellate authority is as under:
'In the light of the foregoing facts and taking into consideration the totality of the case, I am of the view that the charges proved against the appellant are of serious nature resulting in likely loss to the bank. I am ,therefore, not inclined to interfere with the Appointing Authority's order. The appeal, thus, stands rejected.'
10. Sri Prasanna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends before this Court that the entire procedure adopted by the enquiry officer, and the findings given and the conclusion arrived at, is not only illegal but also contrary to the Service Rules of the respondent Bank and in violation of principles of natural justice. While elaborating this contention, the learned Counsel would submit that the findings of the enquiry officer is wholly perverse, in the sense, that the findings is not based on the evidence on record but based on his personal knowledge and further on mere assumptions and presumptions. It is further contended that the findings of the enquiry officer are excessive than the charge itself. The learned Counsel further contends that while the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer, first holds that the petitioner is guilty of all those charges where the enquiry officer had exonerated the charge-sheeted officer for want of evidence and thereafter issues a show cause notice and the procedure so adopted is contrary to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. v. KUNJ BEHARI MISRA, : (1998)IILLJ809SC . Lastly, it is contended that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is excessive.
11. Sri Ramdas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank tried to justify the findings of the enquiry officer and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority based on those findings and the order passed appellate authority in confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
12. The primary allegation made against the petitioner in the charge memo issued by the disciplinary authority is that petitioner failed to submit the control forms to the Controlling Officer and secondly failed to conduct periodical inspection as per the existing instructions. The other minor charge that was alleged against him was that he had purchased agricultural land measuring 21.36 guntas and had got it registered for a nominal amount using the influence of Sri Rama Murthy and M/s. Bindu Enterprise and failed to declare to the Bank the purchase of immovable property as per the existing instructions and thereby placed himself under pecuniary obligations to the party and that alleged omission and commission is in contravention of Rules 32(1), 32(4) and 44 of C and D Regulations of the Bank. To prove these charges, the Bank had examined seven witnesses before the enquiry officer. The delinquent officer in his defence had produced several documents by way of his defence.
13. The enquiry officer in so far as the first charge is concerned, in his report observes, that the common charges appearing against the charge sheeted officer in respect of various accounts said to have been handled by him are:
(1) conduct of periodical inspection;
(2) non-submission of control forms; and
(3) area of operation.
In so far as the first component of the charge is concerned, it can safely be said that none of the witnesses examined by the Bank before the enquiry officer have spoken about the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the charge memo. However, the enquiry officer in his lengthy report based on his personal knowledge about the instructions and guidelines issued by the Head Office of the Bank for conduct of inspection of Field Officers of the Bank, observes that it is the duty of the Field Officer, to conduct periodical inspection and maintain proper records of those inspections. To arrive at the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of this charge, he merely states in his report that Sri Krishna Murthy Urala - P.W. 4 has deposed that the charged official has not conducted any periodical inspection. This conclusion of the enquiry officer is based on the misreading of the evidence of P.W. 4 by the enquiry officer. In fact, P.W. 4 in his lengthy deposition before the enquiry officer has stated that the periodical inspections of units were carried out by the petitioner some times independently and some times with the Branch Manager and the relevant records were not available at the Branch. It has also come in the evidence that the Branch was shifted to new Building some time in the year 1989 and during shifting, books used for recording of the inspection of units might have been misplaced and they are not traceable. So, in my opinion, picking out one stray sentence here and there in the deposition of P.W. 4 and importing his personal knowledge about the so called instructions and guidelines issued by the Bank, in my view, the enquiry officer could not have come to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to conduct periodical inspection and therefore that part of the charge in the charge memo is proved against him.
In so far as the second limb of the charge memo i.e. non submission of control forms to the controlling office is concerned, the enquiry officer notices that the defence of the delinquent is that submission of the control forms is the responsibility of the Branch Manager and not that of the Field Officer but without discussing any evidence on record produced by the management, again basing on his personal knowledge, jumps to the conclusion that the defence of the delinquent is not acceptable. The reasoning of the enquiry officer to hold petitioner guilty of the charge is not only strange but also wholly unreasonable and grossly unjust. I say strange for the reason, that the enquiry officer is of the view, that it is the charge sheeted officer has to prove that he is innocent and not guilty of the charges alleged against him. In a departmental enquiry and for that matter, in any enquiry proceedings, if the charge sheeted officer denies the charges alleged against him by filing his defence statement, the onus shifts on the disciplinary authority to prove the charges alleged against the delinquent employee by producing relevant material and that evidential material must be such that it amounts to the guilt of the employee in respect of the charge against him with some degree of definiteness. In the present case, the enquiry officer holds petitioner guilty of this charge only on the ground that the defence has not made any attempt to bring the control forms from the controlling authority and therefore, it indicates that the control forms have not been submitted. The findings of the enquiry officer in this regard is as under:
'The charge No. ii(A) pertaining to M/s. Bindu Enterprises & charge No. viii(a) pertaining to M/s. Farooq Tanning regarding non-submission of control form is not proved since control forms duly acknowledged by controlling authority were produced vide DEX 1 and 2 by the defence.
However, in respect of other units listed in the charge sheet regarding non-submission of control from the charges are proved. Although, it is likely that the Bank's files may be missing due to shifting of the branch, no attempt has been made by the defence to bring the control forms from the controlling authority. It only clearly indicates that the control forms have not been submitted. This is a failure on the part of the charged official.
This has been amply deposed by P.W. 4 on page 11 of the proceedings. Hence, the charges no. 1 iv (b), v(b), vi(a) and vii (c) have been amply proved.'
14. In so far as the third limb of the charge is concerned the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record regarding the area of operation. In fact, the delinquent officer in his length reply statement for the charge memo as well as to the second show cause notice has stated that the Bank has sanctioned loan to number of customers, outside the area of operation of the branch office. Here again the enquiry officer brings his personal knowledge with regard to functioning of the branch office to hold petitioner guilty of this charge memo.
15. In so far as the second charge is concerned, the allegation was that the petitioner had purchased agricultural land for nominal value by using influence of one Sri Rama Murthy and that the petitioner had not declared to the Bank the purchase of immovable property as required under the Service Rules of the Bank. The Presenting Officer before the enquiry officer infact requests the enquiry officer to drop the charges in so far as it relates to the influence of Sri Rama Murthy of M/s. Bindu Enterprises, who were enjoying credit facilities with the branch office of the Bank. In view of the request made by the Presenting Officer the enquiry officer should have dropped the charge alleged against the petitioner in this regard. But for the reasons best known to him observes:
'Regarding the value of the property, the P.O. has not brought in a competent person to depose in the matter. It is suggested that a proper valuation certificate will be the basis to exactly comment on the charge. In the circumstances, I am not able to rely either on the prosecution or defence arguments.
16. In so far as the charge with regard to non-submission of return of assets and liabilities are concerned, the enquiry officer once again relies on the instruction and guidelines issued by the Head Office of the Bank to hold petitioner guilty of this charge also. The report of the enquiry officer is once again based on his personal knowledge and in fact management has not adduced any evidence in support of this charge. When there was no evidence on record in support of this charge made in the charge memo, the enquiry officer ought to have exonerated the petitioner from this, but based on his personal knowledge observes in his report as under:
'Similarly, previous sanction of the Appropriate Authority will have to be obtained by an employee if the transaction relating to immovable property or movable property in excess of Rs. 5000 is with a person obligated to the Bank through official dealings with the employee or otherwise than through a regular or reputed dealer.
The defence argument that the land purchased was sold on 26.3.88 and hence it did not find a place in the assets and liabilities statement as on 31.3.88 is not tenable, since PEX 21, 22, 23 clearly proved the purchase and sale of land by CO. PEX 234 clearly proves that the CO has not declared the immovable property purchased and sold by him as per the extant instructions quoted above. Hence, the charge that he failed to declare to the Bank the purchase of immovable property is clearly proved.'
17. A careful perusal of the findings of the enquiry officer on the allegation of not conducting periodical inspections, non-submission of control forms to the controlling authority and recommending loans to the units situate beyond the area of operation of the Branch Office would reveal that the entire report is based on the personal knowledge of the enquiry officer and is based on no evidence produced by the management before the enquiry officer to prove the charges alleged against the petitioner. It is now well settled, that the report of theenquiry officer should be based on the oral and documentary evidence on record produced by the parties during the enquiry proceedings and the same cannot be based on the personal knowledge of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary proceedings before the enquiry officer may not be equated to the proceeding before a Court, but even then, the enquiry Officer is required to follow the rules of natural justice. Minimum requirement of this Rule is that the enquiry officer should arrive at his conclusion on the basis of some evidence on record. At this stage, it may be useful to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of ANIL KUMAR v. PRESIDING OFFICER, : (1986)ILLJ101SC wherein the Court has observed as under:
'6. Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an order sheet and no correlation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to observe that it is not an enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was no enquiry in this case worth the name and the order of termination based on such proceeding disclosing non-application of mind would be unsustainable.'
18. To conclude, in disciplinary proceedings the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the material produced before the enquiry officer supports the conclusion that the officer is guilty of the charges alleged in the charge memo, the Writ Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would not review the findings of the enquiry officer to arrive at its own findings. Therefore, it is time and again said that there must be some evidence on record which would point out the guilt of the charge sheeted officer and the enquiry officer should not import his personal knowledge and experience and rely upon material which was not placed on record during the enquiry proceedings. These finer aspects of the matter should have been taken into consideration both by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority before accepting the findings of the enquiry officer and imposing a major penalty of reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale I. Since the disciplinary authority has accepted the 'faulty findings' of the enquiry officer and has imposed a major penalty, the same cannot be sustained by this Court.
19. Accordingly, the following: