16 Another infirmity in the disciplinary proceeding is that the Disciplinary Authority, after submission of the enquiry report, has relied upon the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer holding the charges proved, based on consideration that the petitioner has, in spite of notice, chosen not to appear in the proceedings, or cross-examine the witnesses. The conclusion, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary and capricious that no person could have arrived at such conclusion. The records of the proceedings manifests that there was no intimation to the petitioner regarding examination of two witnesses, namely Video Kisku and Uday Kumar. The third witness has merely identified a report, submitted by him earlier, in relation to the incident forming the basis of alleged misconduct. He has not supported the allegations as a witness to the occurrence or based on any personal knowledge. He had, in his official capacity, earlier submitted a report. He has only identified his report before the Enquiry Officer. His statement, therefore, was irrelevant and extraneous.
