Vitiated proceeding the respondent cannot be dismissed from service–– It is palpably transparent from record of the case in hand that in taking action against the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 inflicting major punishment the authority issued show cause notice to him on 24.08.1999, but charge was framed on 28.11.1999, which is in clear violation of Probidhan 41 of Probidhanmala, 1992 which vitiates the entire enquiry proceeding against the writ petitioner. It also divulges from the record that the writ petitioner has also not been supplied with the copy of charge. ––From the inquiry report (Annexure-L(1)) it is seen that no oral evidence was recorded by the Inquiry Officer to prove the allegations brought against the respondent No.1, eventually no question of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses by the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 has arisen at all. Thus, the inquiry proceeding in the case in hand has not been held in compliance with the provisions laid down in Probidhan 42 of Probidhanmala, 1992. In the aforesaid backdrop the impugned dismissal order of the respondent No.1 backed by flawed departmental proceeding cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. .....Sadharan Bima Corporation =VS= Md. Rafiqul Islam, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 621] ....View Full Judgment