what was alleged was that the respondent cooperated him in the act of embezzlement or rather facilitate embezzlement. We have been taken through the charge sheet and all five articles of charges and we are inclined to agree with the learned Single Judge that in first four articles of charges, charge of embezzlement was made against Abdul Wahid Khan, Cashier, who has eventually been exonerated. Therein, there is no specific allegation of embezzlement against the respondent. All that has been alleged is that he helped Abdul Wahid Khan in the act of embezzlement. As regard Charge No. 5, on specific query by the Court, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out whether the cheques were issued under the signatures of the respondent. Findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on all the five charges cannot be held to be proved beyond standard of preponderance of probabilities. Learned Single Judge, in our view, was justified in holding that unless charges are specifically framed against the respondent, he could not be held guilty. The Enquiry Officer could not have, without altering the charges at the instances of the appellant, recorded a finding of embezzlement against the respondent. We are therefore not inclined to upheld the argument that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, even if the charge of embezzlement has not been proved against him and that the allegation in the charge sheet was only that he helped the cashier in making the embezzlement. The argument of availability of alternative, speedy and efficacious remedy, in our view, has rightly been not upheld by the learned Single Judge because the writ petition in the present case was filed in the year 1999 and admitted on 31.03.2008. It remained pending for as long as 19
