Govind Jee Khare v. State of Uttar Pradesh — 1971 DIGILAW 371 (ALL)

ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the State Government dated 30th May, 1970 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner has further claimed a relief of mandamus directing the respondent, the State of Uttar Pradesh to treat the petitioner in service as the Assistant Mechanical Engineer in the Irrigation Department. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case, it would be necessary to have a resume of material facts. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Mechanical Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh and joined his service on 15th April, 1964 as Sub-Divisional Officer in Khajuria Branch construction Division of Gandak Canal Circle I in the district of Deoria. This was the petitioner's first appointment after he passed out from College. He had no prior experience of working in any Government Department. The Sub-Division Office, of which the petitioner was Incharge, was located at Padrauna and the Divisional Office was at Deoria while the Circle Office was at Gorakhpur. The petitioner's duty was to maintain all heavy and electrical machines used for construction of canal in the area including repairs to keen them in working order and to place them where the work was required. Sri R. C. P. Saxena was the Executive Engineer of the Division at Deoria, he continued to be the Incharge of division from 15th of April, 1964 to 16th June 1964. After Sri Saxena was transferred. Sri Raghuraj Singh took over as Executive Engineer with effect from 16th of June, 1964. 3. The petitioner had purchased electrical and other materials for the purposes of the work, which was being carried on under him during the period April 1964 to July, 1964 and in that connection he had placed 30 work orders with Contractors for the supply of materials. Various items were purchased by the petitioner under work orders Nos. 1 to 17 between the period 30th April to 4th June, 1964 and the remaining purchases were made by the petitioner under work orders Nos. 18 to 30 between the period from 18th of July to 23rd July, 1964. In June. 1965 the accounts of the Division were audited and the auditors raised objection against the orders placed by the petitioner. 18 to 30 between the period from 18th of July to 23rd July, 1964. In June. 1965 the accounts of the Division were audited and the auditors raised objection against the orders placed by the petitioner. Enquiries were made from the aforesaid Executive Engineer. Subsequently. the petitioner was suspended on 15th October, 1966, A charge-sheet containing 12 charges were served upon him. Sri K. C. Goel, Superintending Engineer, IInd Gandak Canal Circle, Gorakhpur was appointed Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry against the petitioner. Sri K.C. Goel held an enquiry, thereupon he submitted his findings to the State Government holding that the charges were proved against the petitioner. The State Government accepted the findings and it issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, to show cause, why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply and contested the findings on several grounds. The State Government passed an order on 30th may, 1970 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner has challenged the order of removal on a number of grounds. 4. Sri S. C. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner lias contended that the enquiry was held in violation of Rr. 55 and 55-A of the U.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules). The Enquiry Officer collected materials behind the petitioner's back, without disclosing the same to the petitioner although the enquiry officer relied upon the same and recorded his finding against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, enquiry was held in derogation of rules of natural justice and the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of defence as contemplated by the said Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution. Learned counsel has further urged that no confronted enquiry was held and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the persons, whose statements and letters had been relied upon against him and lastly, the order of the State Government is void as it contains no reasons. The learned counsel for the State has, however, contended that the petitioner was given full opportunity of defence and there has been no violation of any rules of natural justice and the petitioner, is not entitled to any relief from this Court. 5. In order to appreciate the questions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to refer to the charges framed against the petitioner. 5. In order to appreciate the questions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to refer to the charges framed against the petitioner. The charges against the petitioner are as under :- "(1) That during the period 30-4-64 to 23-7-1964 you issued work orders numbers 1 to 30 for the supply of stores to the tune of Rs. 1,92,775/- without calling for sealed quotations or tenders in the most public manner as provided in the rules and without giving wide publicity to the requirements of the department to secure competitive rates. You are. therefore, guilty of committing a serious financial irregularity which had a direct financial bearing on the purchases so made. (2) That quotation notices said to have been issued by you for purchases mentioned in charge No. 1 above were not despatched through your despatch register to firms stationed at places other than Padrauna or Deoria. Quotations said to have been obtained in response to quotation notices were collected in person by you from representatives of firm said to be carrying out business in the district about that time. This practice of delivering notices in person and obtaining quotations in person suggests that you had some personal motives in the transaction. You are, therefore, guilty of promoting your personal interest at the expenses of the Department. (3-A) That you issued Work Order No. 28 dated 22-7-64 without determining the specifications of the materials ordered for in the work order. On enquiry you have reported that the material purchased was Russian made while no such specification was mentioned in the work order. You are, therefore, guilty of exposing (Government to the risk of dispute with the party concerned. (3-B) That you issued work order numbers 25 and 27 dated 21-7-64 for purchase of Hydraulic Jacks `Best Indians'. On enquiry as to justification of rates you have stated that the raw material supplied was of U. S. A. made. You are, therefore, guilty of not determining the specification of the materials ordered for purchase and are, therefore, guilty of exposing Government to the risk of dispute with the party concerned. (4) That in support of quotation notice No. 968. dated 9-7-64 said to have been issued by you. you have produced quotations of M/s. Dass Electric Co. You are, therefore, guilty of not determining the specification of the materials ordered for purchase and are, therefore, guilty of exposing Government to the risk of dispute with the party concerned. (4) That in support of quotation notice No. 968. dated 9-7-64 said to have been issued by you. you have produced quotations of M/s. Dass Electric Co. and Deo Narain Jaiswal in which there is a remark in manuscript which reads `Packing and forwarding will be given if admissible." This remark in letter and spirit indicates that it was inserted by some Departmental man. You are, therefore, guilty of allowing important Government records in your custody to be tampered with, thereby exposing the Department to the risk of financial implications. (5) That in work order Nos. 1 to 30 issued by you for the purchase of stores you have made a condition that paciring and forwarding would be paid extra if admissible and actually made payment for packing and forwarding to several firms. On a reference by the Executive Engineer, Khajuria Branch Const. Divn. Deoria as to why packing & forwarding charges were allowed without categorical provision in the work orders, you started recovery for the payment made on this account. Even though recoveries were sub-sequently made by you. you are guilty of causing interim loss to Government by not observing financial proprieties. (6) That the Executive Engineer, Khajuria Branch Const. Divn. Deoria verbally ordered you on 12-7-64 to stop purchase of stores immediately. This verbal order was confirmed by him in his written order dated 20-7-64. In spite of these prohibitory orders you continued to issue orders and collect material presumably to further your personal interest and to oblige the contratctors. You are therefore, guilty of disobedience of orders of your superior officers and of promoting your personal interest at the expense of Government. (7) That you submitted quotation notices, quotations and comparative statements for the purchase of stores in support of the rates provided in your work orders as mentioned in para 1 long after these documents were demanded from you by the Executive Engineer, Khajuria Branch Construction Divn. Deoria. Some of these quotations bear your initials while some others do not. (7) That you submitted quotation notices, quotations and comparative statements for the purchase of stores in support of the rates provided in your work orders as mentioned in para 1 long after these documents were demanded from you by the Executive Engineer, Khajuria Branch Construction Divn. Deoria. Some of these quotations bear your initials while some others do not. This phenomenon when connected with the fact that quotations were collected in person would go to show that quotation notices were not issued at all and quotations were collected at your will for the completion of your records. You are, therefore, guilty of falsification of documents on which work orders of over a lakh of rupees had been based. (8) That while issuing work orders to the tune of Rs. 1,92,776/- you did not work out immediate requirement of the materials 14 and made indiscriminate purchases of stores at random with the result that materials were purchased long in advance and Government money was locked up without being able to give a fair return. You are, therefore, guilty of violating financial rules and exposing Government material to the risk of depreciation and deterioration and of expending Government money which had no immediate prospects of yielding any return till long after the purchase had been made. (9) That you issued work orders No. 4 dated 10-5-64 and 8 dated 12 5-64 for the purchase of welding flux for Rs. 14,200/- with the full knowledge that the Division could not use it as there was no welding machine available with the Division. You are, therefore, guilty of infructuous expenditure. (10) That you made purchases of store to the tune of Rs. 1,92,776/- through your work orders No. 1 to 30 in disregard of the financial limitations placed on the Sub-Divisional officer under Commission Secretary, Irrigation & Power letter No. 455-C-PA (P. A.) /18 dated 11-1-62 and in violation of rules laid down in para 369 of F. H. B. Vol. VI. In this way not only the purchases have been made much in excess of your power as S.D.O, but also the principle of issuing work orders has been infringed. You are, therefore, guilty of committing financial improprieties. VI. In this way not only the purchases have been made much in excess of your power as S.D.O, but also the principle of issuing work orders has been infringed. You are, therefore, guilty of committing financial improprieties. (11) That in justification of the rates offered by you in work orders 1 to 30 as mentioned in para (a) hereof you have submitted quotations of certain nonstandard firms which were collected in a dubious manner. At the same time you have explained that you noted the rates and names of the firms carefully from the orders which had been placed by the then Executive Engineer Sri R.C.P. Saxena. This statement goes to prove that the quotations produced by you were not genuine and were obtained from spurious firms, just to prove that the rules regarding purchases of materials have been observed by you. It also goes to prove that the reference to the supply orders of Sri R.C.P. Saxena the then Executive Engineer, has been made as a cover for your own acts of omission and commission. You are. therefore, guilty of placing orders with and making the purchases from spurious firms without ascertaining the then market rates from standard firms of repute, to serve your own selfish ends. (12) That by obtaining quotations personally from spurious firms you by placing orders at exorbitant rates with such firms without ascertaining the current market rates from firms of repute in the manner prescribed by Government pay caused the loss of Rs. 72,060/- to the Government. You are, therefore, guilty of causing deliberately a heavy loss to the Government for your personal financial (sic)." 6. The petitioner submitted his written statement to the charges. Among other things he stated that he had joined service on 15th April fresh from College and he had no training in the intricacies of financial matters. He placed orders for the purchase of material under work orders Nos. 1 to 17 on the instructions of Sri R. C. P. Saxena, the then Executive Engineer on the same rates from the same contractors, from which the Executive Engineer had himself been placing orders earlier. He had been submitting monthly accounts to the Divisional office before Sri Saxena proceeded on transfer but no objection was raised at any stage regarding those purchases. As regards the purchases made by the petitioner under work order Nos. He had been submitting monthly accounts to the Divisional office before Sri Saxena proceeded on transfer but no objection was raised at any stage regarding those purchases. As regards the purchases made by the petitioner under work order Nos. 18 to 30, he explained that the same were also purchased under the verbal instructions of Sri Raghuraj Singh, the then Executive Engineer in July, 1964. The petitioner relied upon a demi-official letter dated 22nd July, 1964 which he had sent to the Divisional Officer Confirming the verbal instructions of Sri Raghuraj Singh, the then Executive Engineer for purchase of materials under the said work orders. He annexed a photostat copy of that letter along with a copy of reply to that letter and offered to produce the original at the time of enquiry. In his reply to the charges, petitioner stated that when audit objections were raised in 1965, the Executive Engineer sent a letter dated 20th January. 1965 to the petitioner raising objections against the aforesaid purchases, that letter was issued and a reminder in June, 1965 to save his own skin. The Executive Engineer, Sri Saxena further manufactured an ante-dated letter dated 1st September. 1965, showing that the letter was ad- dressed to the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charges in detail. He asked for an opportunity of personal hearing and a confronted enquiry. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in the first instance urged that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry officer was wholly against the provisions of Rules 55 and 55-A of the U.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and in derogation to the rules of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer, according to the learned counsel, obtained material and relied upon the same in giving findings against the petitioner, though that material was never disclosed to the petitioner, and no confronted enquiry was held and the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the persons, whose statements were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in giving his findings. 8. All the 12 charges arise out of two sets of transactions, one relating to the work order Nos. 1 to 17 placed by the petitioner for the purchase of materials during the period when R.C.P. Saxena was the Executive Engineer and the other relating to the work order Nos. 8. All the 12 charges arise out of two sets of transactions, one relating to the work order Nos. 1 to 17 placed by the petitioner for the purchase of materials during the period when R.C.P. Saxena was the Executive Engineer and the other relating to the work order Nos. 18 to 30 for the purchase of material during the period when Raghuraj Singh was the Executive Engineer. The petitioner's main defence was that he had placed the work orders on the verbal instructions of the two Executive Engineers and in the case of Raghurai Singh he further relied upon his letter dated 22nd July 1964. R.C.P. Saxena was therefore, a necessary witness. On the material on record it appears that the Enquiry Officer summoned R.C.P. Saxena, to appear before him on 6th April, 1967, He was, however, not examined by the Enquiry Officer instead the petitioner was asked to give questions in writing which he wanted to put to Saxena. The petitioner complied with the order of the Enquiry Officer, and he wrote out his questions. The Enquiry Officer K.G. Goel obtained replies to those questions from R. C.P. Saxena through a letter dated 7th April, 1967, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure `E' to the writ petition. In this letter Sri Saxena gave detailed replies, he refuted the petitioner's version that Saxena had given oral instructions for purchase of the materials. This letter was never disclosed to the petitioner. A copy of this letter for the first time was given to the petitioner after the show cause notice was served on him. Prior to that he had never been informed about the letter or its contents. The statement of Saxena as given in his letter dated 20th April, 1967 has been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in holding the charges proved against the petitioner in respect of work order Nos, 1 to 17. The petitioner's contention, therefore, that as confronted enquiry was held and the material collected behind his back was relied upon by the Enquiry Officer is fully established. 9. As regards the charges relating to the purchase of material under work order Nos. The petitioner's contention, therefore, that as confronted enquiry was held and the material collected behind his back was relied upon by the Enquiry Officer is fully established. 9. As regards the charges relating to the purchase of material under work order Nos. 18 to 30, during the period when Raghuraj Singh was the Executive Engineer, petitioner's contention was that he had purchased materials under the verbal instructions of Raghuraj Singh given on 17th July, 1964 and that he had further confirmed that under his letter dated 22nd April, 1967 addressed to the Divisional Office and further he had received a reply to that letter from the Divisional Accountant of the Division. Under these circumstances the evidence of Raghuraj Singh and of the Divisional Accountant was very material. The Enquiry Officer however adopted a novel procedure. He made an enquiry from Raghuraj Singh through a letter dated 25th February, 1967 with regard to the correctness of the explanation given by the petitioner. Raghuraj Singh by his letter dated 7th March, 1967 denied having given any verbal instruction to the petitioner for the purchase of material. He further stated that on 17th July, 1964 he was not present at the Divisional Office as he was camping at village Basuli along with R.D. Agarwal, another Engineer. Sri Goel. the Enquiry Officer, thereupon sent a letter to R.D. Agarwal. making enquiries from him about the correctness of the statement made by Raghurai Singh in his letter dated 7th March, 1967. Sri Goel further made enquiries from the Superintending Engineer and from the Divisional Headquarters about the T.A. Bills of Raghuraj Singh in order to ascertain the truth of his statement that he was on tour on 17th July, 1964. R.D. Agarwal, by his letter dated 25th February, 1967 informed the enquiry Officer that Raghuraj Singh was camping with him from 15th July to 18th July, 1964 at Basuli and, the information given by Raghuraj Singh was correct. 10. It is noteworthy that the correspondence which the enquiry Officer had with Raghuraj Singh and R. D. Agarwal and the replies received from them was not disclosed to the petitioner at any stage during the enquiry Raghuraj Singh appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 13th April, 1967 for giving his evidence. The Enquiry Officer did not record any statement of Raghuraj Singh. No examination-in-chief took place instead the petitioner was asked to cross-examine him. The Enquiry Officer did not record any statement of Raghuraj Singh. No examination-in-chief took place instead the petitioner was asked to cross-examine him. The petitioner asked certain questions to Raghuraj Singh but no question was put to him relating to his replies given to the enquiry officer through his letter. The petitioner could not ask any questions as he had no knowledge about the correspondence that had taken place between the enquiry officer and Raghuraj Singh. In the absence of any such knowledge petitioner could not guess that "Raghuraj Singh had refuted his version. The petitioner did not know that Raghuraj Singh had stated in his reply to the Enquiry Officer that on 17th July, 1964 he was not available at the Divisional Headquarters, therefore the petitioner could not and did not cross-examine Raghuraj Singh on these points. The opportunity afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine Raghuraj Singh under these circumstances was an illusory one. The opportunity to cross-examine must be an effective, one. The petitioner in fairness should have been told about the replies given by Raghuraj Singh, when Raghuraj Sinph was in the witness box. the Enquiry Officer should have confronted the witness, with the replies sent to him, and if Raghuraj Singh confirmed the version contained in his letter, the petitioner should have been afforded opportunity to cross-examine Raghuraj Singh. The procedure adopted was against all principles of fair play and natural justice. As regards R.D. Agarwal, he was never examined by the enquiry Officer and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine him and though the Enquiry Officer relied upon the version given by R.D. Agarwal, in his letter dated 25th February, 1967. 11. As already noted, petitioner had appended a photostat copy of his letter to Divisional Office along with his explanation in support of his contention that under the verbal orders of Raghuraj Singh he had purchased the material under the work order Nos. 18 to 30 and in that connection he had relied upon a demi-official letter written by him to the Executive Engineer on 22nd July 1964 and a reply to that letter received by him from the Divisional Accountant of the same date. The Enquiry Officer again adopted the same procedure. He wrote a demi-official letter on 16th February, 1967 to the Divisional Accountant and got a reply on his record from him. The Enquiry Officer again adopted the same procedure. He wrote a demi-official letter on 16th February, 1967 to the Divisional Accountant and got a reply on his record from him. The Divisional Accountant by his letter dated 24th February, 1967 stated that copy of the letter, a photostat copy of which was annexed by the petitioner to his explanation, was not available in the Divisional Office and as regards the sending of reply to that letter by him, he stated that he did not recollect any thing about the issue of that letter, after a lapse of 2 years. A copy of the letter from the Divisional Accountant addressed to the Enquiry Officer dated 24th February, 1967 has been filed as Annexure `K' to the petition. The correspondence, which the enquiry Officer had with the Divisional Accountant and the reply received from him was not disclosed to the petitioner and he was kept in dark about it. The Divisional Accountant was produced before the Enquiry Officer for giving his statement on 8-3-1967. The Enquiry Officer did not record any statement of the Divisional Accountant. No Examination-in-chief was recorded. The reply sent by the Divisional Accountant on 24th February, 1967 to the letter of the enquiry Officer was not even put to him neither he confirmed that the statement contained in his letter dated 24th February, 1967 was correct. It appears that every effort was made by the Enquiry Officer to keep the reply given by the Divisional Accountant secret from the petitioner. Even though the Divisional Accountant made no statement before the Enquiry Officer in the presence of the petitioner, the petitioner was asked to cross-examine Deen Dayal, the Divisional Accountant. As the petitioner was ignorant that Deen Dayal had repudiated his letter dated 24th February, 1967, the petitioner had nothing to ask from Deen Dayal. Since no statement was made denying the stand taken by the petitioner in his explanation, he did not cross-examine Deen Dayal. The Enquiry Officer has relied upon the letter of Deen Dayal dated 24th February, 1967 in recording a finding against the petitioner on the charges arising out of the transaction of purchase of material under work order Nos. 18 to 30. The procedure adopted by. the Enquiry Officer was most unfair and derogatory to rules of natural justice. 12. The Enquiry Officer has relied upon the letter of Deen Dayal dated 24th February, 1967 in recording a finding against the petitioner on the charges arising out of the transaction of purchase of material under work order Nos. 18 to 30. The procedure adopted by. the Enquiry Officer was most unfair and derogatory to rules of natural justice. 12. After the enquiry was over but before any show cause notice was served on the petitioner, he made an application on 7-6-67 to the Enquiry Officer (A copy of that application has been filed as Annexure `N' to the petition) saying that he had come to know that some information was collected behind his back from R. D. Agarwal and if that be a fact, he should have been told about that, and should have been allowed to cross-examine Agarwal. He also complained of breach of rules of natural justice. This letter clearly shows that the petitioner was kept in dark about the material collected by the Enquiry Officer, Petitioner was served with show cause notice along with a copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. On perusal of the findings petitioner came to know about the materials collected by Sri Goel, behind his back, he therefore, sent a letter to Sri Goel on 2-5-68 (copy annexed to rejoinder affidavit as Annexure 11) raising a grievance that various letters noted therein were relied on in the findings, although those were never disclosed to him. He made a prayer for the supply of copies of those documents so that he could prepare his reply to the show cause notice. These two documents, and the petitioner's averment on oath before this" Court, firmly establish his grievance that the enquiry Officer collected material behind his back, which was utilised by tile enquiry Officer in giving findings against him without affording him any opportunity to explain the same at any stage of the enquiry. A counter-affidavit has been filed by K. C. Goel, the Enquiry Officer in reply to the allegations made by the petitioner, In paragraph 16 of his affidavit K. C. Goel has made a feeble attempt to state that the petitioner had knowledge about the information contained in the aforesaid correspondence. A counter-affidavit has been filed by K. C. Goel, the Enquiry Officer in reply to the allegations made by the petitioner, In paragraph 16 of his affidavit K. C. Goel has made a feeble attempt to state that the petitioner had knowledge about the information contained in the aforesaid correspondence. Sri Goel has assented that since the petitioner had access to the entire record, therefore, it was not necessary to inform him about every paper which was there on the record. In paragraph 14 of his affidavit he has further stated that the aforesaid correspondence was on the record of the enquiry which the petitioner must have seen during the course of inspection made by him during the enquiry proceedings. This averment clearly shows that the Enquiry officer himself was not certain that the material so collected behind the petitioner's back had been disclosed to him. In making his assertion in paragraphs 14 and 16 of his affidavit Sri Goel has proceeded on presumptions. The petitioner in paragraphs 14 and 16 of his rejoinder affidavit has denied to have inspected the records during the proceedings of the enquiry. According to the petitioner, on his request the enquiry Officer had once allowed an opportunity of inspection of those documents which were mentioned in the charge-sheet. The petitioner has further, stated that the material collected by the Enquiry Officer through correspondence from various officers of the department was not included in the charges and it was not shown to him at any stage during the enquiry. He was further asserted that when he had inspected the file after the service of charge-sheet on him, the documents in question were not on the file. The evasive reply given by the Enquiry Officer and the positive assertion made by the petitioner leave no room for any doubt that the material so collected by the Enquiry Officer was not shown to the petitioner or brought to his notice and he had no information or knowledge about the same at any stage during the enquiry. On the materials on record I am satisfied that the petitioner's grievance that the enquiry Officer collected material behind his back which was never disclosed to him during the enquiry is correct. 13. Learned counsel for the State has. On the materials on record I am satisfied that the petitioner's grievance that the enquiry Officer collected material behind his back which was never disclosed to him during the enquiry is correct. 13. Learned counsel for the State has. however urged that the Enquiry Officer was not the Disciplinary Authority competent to pass order of punishment against the petitioner and, in fact, the State Government was the appointing authority which passed the final order of removal against the petitioner independently considering material on record and since the copies of the letters which the Enquiry Officer had exchanged with the Officers of the Department had been supplied to the petitioner before he submitted his reply to the show cause notice, no rules of natural justice have been violated. Learned counsel has further urged that the defect, if any, in the enquiry was cured at the stage of show cause notice as the petitioner had full opportunity to meet the material which had been collected by the Enquiry Officer behind his back. He has placed reliance on the case of State of Assam v. M.K. Das, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1255. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also the case of Mahendra Kumar Das. In my opinion, that case does not improve the respondent's case. In A.I.R. 1970 SC 1255 their Lordships of the Supreme Court had first laid down the correct position of law with regard to the holding of enquiry and collection of material in the following words : "If it is established that material behind the back of the delinquent Officer has been collected during the enquiry and such material has been relied on by the Enquiry Officer without its having been disclosed to the delinquent officer, the enquiry proceedings are vitiated. If in such a case the disciplinary Authority himself is the Enquiry Officer the position will be still worse and the mere fact that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority have been confirmed by the Appellate Authority without any thing more, will not alter the position in favour of the department." The aforesaid observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court leaves no room for any doubt that once it is established that the material collected behind the back of a delinquent officer is relied upon in recording a finding against him without disclosing that material to the delinquent officer the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated. Such defect cannot be cured even if the order of the Disciplinary. Authority is confirmed by appellate Authority. 15. Learned counsel for the State has, however relied on the following observation of the Supreme Court :- "Where, however, the Enquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, who is competent to impose the punishment upon the delinquent officer and the latter has independently gone into the evidence on record in respect of the charges against the officer and has come to an independent conclusion that the officer is guilty which is again considered independently and confirmed by the appellate authority no principle of natural justice can be said to have been violated." The above observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court was made in the context of the particular facts of that case. The facts of that case, were quite different than those involved in the present case. The situation and the circumstances which prevailed in the case of M. K. Dass, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1255 are not available in the present case. In the case of M.K. Dass one of the grievances raised on behalf of M. K. Das was that the enquiry Officer during the course of enquiry was keeping himself in regular contact with officers of the Ante-corruption branch and utilised the material so gathered by him, behind his back, and further the request of M.K. Das for being furnished with a copy of the report of the Anti-corruption branch had been refused, as such, there had been a violation of the principles of natural justice, in the conduct of the enquiry. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court examined the material on record of that case and thereafter their Lordships (in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the AIR report) concluded that a perusal of the report of the enquiry Officer shows that there was absolutely no reference to any date or material, if any, collected by the Enquiry Officer when he consulted the Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti-corruption Branch. Their Lordships further held that the enquiry report did not show that materials if any, collected by the Enquiry Officer had been utilised against the respondent (M.K. Das). The entire basis of the grievance of M.K. Das before the Supreme Court was that the Enquiry Officer had collected material behind his back, which was not disclosed to him, although it was relied upon in the enquiry report against him, was not found established. It was under these circumstances that their Lordships held that the rules of natural justice had not been violated. In making the above noted observation their Lordships of the Supreme Court had referred to the order of the Superintendent of Police who was the competent authority to pass order of punishment against M.K. Das. Their Lordships held that the order of the Superintendent of Police clearly shows that the said officer had independently gone into the material on record and the charges for which M.K. Das was tried and after taking into account the explanation furnished by the petitioner. (M.K. Das.), the Superintendent of Police independently came to the conclusion that Sri Dass was guilty. It was under these circumstances that their Lordships held that if in a case where punishing authority gives a finding independently after considering the explanation of the delinquent Officer and considering the entire material on record no violation of principles of natural justice can arise. In the present case however the circumstances are quite different. 16. The State Government was the appointing authority, it accepted the findings recorded by the enquiry officer whereupon it issued notice of show cause to the petitioner. In his reply to the show cause notice petitioner raised his grievance against the procedure followed by the enquiry officer in collecting material behind his back and placing reliance on the same in his finding even though that material was not disclosed to him. In his reply to the show cause notice petitioner raised his grievance against the procedure followed by the enquiry officer in collecting material behind his back and placing reliance on the same in his finding even though that material was not disclosed to him. There is nothing on record before me to show that the State Government independently had gone into the evidence in respect of the charges for which the petitioner was tried and that after taking into account the explanation furnished by the petitioner it had independently come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. In the show cause notice dated 6th April, 1968 issued by the State Government it was stated that the State Government had considered the charges, the petitioner's explanation and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and thereupon it was of the opinion that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. As already stated petitioner raised several points and specific grievance about the collection of evidence by the enquiry officer behind his back. The order dated 30th May, 1970 (Annexure S to the petition) removing the petitioner from service does not show that the petitioner's explanation was considered and that the State Government independently came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty. The order of the State Government is laconic and it does not contain any reasons. Paragraph 2 of the order, which is material, merely states that the State Government has considered the explanation of the petitioner and thereupon it has come to the conclusion that it would be proper in the interest of justice to remove the petitioner from service. A counter affidavit on behalf of the State Government has been filed by an Upper Division Assistant of the Irrigation Department. Even in that counter-affidavit it has not been stated that apart from the report of the enquiry officer, the State Government had considered the charges, the petitioner's explanation and his grievance about the non-disclosure of the material collected behind his back and relied upon, against him. It also does not state clearly that the State Government had independently gone into the evidence on record in respect of the charges and had independently come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty. It also does not state clearly that the State Government had independently gone into the evidence on record in respect of the charges and had independently come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty. Paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit of M. P. Sharma, Upper Division Assistant of Irrigation Department merely states that the reply of the petitioner was considered by the Government and the opinion of the Public Service Commission was obtained and. since the prescribed procedure was followed, there was no question of giving any further opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses or to produce witnesses at that stage. On the material on record it is therefore, clear that the case of M.K. Dass, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1255 does not help the respondents. 17. It is true that the petitioner was supplied with the copies of the letters when he made a request for that, after the notice to show cause was served on him. At that stage the petitioner could not effectively meet the material so collected, and utilised against him. He, however, raised specific grievance before the State Government that the procedure followed by the enquiry officer was derogatory to the principles of natural justice and that the enquiry held was a travesty of justice. The State Government should have removed the defect by allowing an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the persons from whom the information against him had been collected or to direct further enquiry in the matter. The fact that the State Government did not consider it necessary to give any opportunity to the petitioner, as in its opinion the enquiry had been held according to the procedure prescribed under the law, itself shows that the State Government did not apply its mind to this aspect of the case. I have already held that the enquiry was vitiated, therefore any order passed on the basis of that enquiry is not sustainable in law. 18. Learned counsel for the State has then urged that in reply to the show cause notice the petitioner did not ask for any opportunity to cross-examine those officers from whom material against him had been collected by the enquiry officer. This contention is without any force. 18. Learned counsel for the State has then urged that in reply to the show cause notice the petitioner did not ask for any opportunity to cross-examine those officers from whom material against him had been collected by the enquiry officer. This contention is without any force. A perusal of petitioner's reply to the show cause notice would show that he raised specific grievance that the material collected by the enquiry officer had not been disclosed to him, and that he had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine those persons from whom such material had been collected, that he was deliberately kept in dark about the material so collected as a result of which he was greatly prejudiced in his defence. In my opinion,, therefore, the petitioner did raise a grievance about the denial of cross-examination. 19. The enquiry in question against the petitioner was held under the provisions of Rule 55 of the U.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955. These rules are statutory rules which have force of law. Rule 55 requires that : "No order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed on any person who holds a civil post under the State unless he is informed of the charges upon which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself, (underlined by me)" Rule 55, therefore, enjoins upon the department to afford an adequate opportunity of defence to the delinquent officer. It is a mandatory duty cast on the appointing authority and any deviation from that mandatory requirement is liable to vitiate the enquiry itself. The procedure of enquiry should be such as to afford a reasonable opportunity of defence to the delinquent officer. The holding of a confronted enquiry, giving of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or to supply the copies of the documents or material sought to be used against the delinquent officer is not dependent on the request of the delinquent officer. The law enjoins that the delinquent officer should be afforded an adequate opportunity of defence and, therefore, it is not necessary for the delinquent officer to ask for an opportunity to cross-examine or to ask for the supply of copies of documents sought to be used against him. The law enjoins that the delinquent officer should be afforded an adequate opportunity of defence and, therefore, it is not necessary for the delinquent officer to ask for an opportunity to cross-examine or to ask for the supply of copies of documents sought to be used against him. It is imperative on the competent disciplinary authority itself to ensure that no material which has not been disclosed to the delinquent officer is used against him and he should take care to follow such a procedure at the enquiry which should afford an adequate opportunity of defence to the delinquent officer. In this context the Supreme Court while considering the scope of reasonable opportunity in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1623 has made the following observations :- "Under Article 311 (2) a public servant is entitled to have a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges framed against him. A proper opportunity must be afforded to him at the stage of the enquiry after the charge is supplied to him as well as at the second stage when punishment is about to be imposed on him. If the first enquiry was materially defective and denied the public servant an opportunity to prove his case, it is impossible to hold that a reasonable opportunity guaranteed to a public servant by Article 311 (2) had been afforded to him." In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court and the requirement contained in Rule 55. the contention of the learned Standing Counsel is without any force. 20. Learned Standing Counsel has urged that there were 12 charges against the petitioner. All of them have been established and the material collected by the Enquiry Officer behind the petitioner's back was not relied upon in firing finding on all the aforesaid charges, therefore, the order of removal is sustainable on the remaining charges in respect of which no undisclosed material was used. According to learned Standing Counsel the enquiry officer did not place any reliance on the undisclosed material in giving findings on charges numbers 3A, 3B, 5, 7 and 11 and therefore according to him the findings in respect of those charges are not vitiated and the impugned order can legally be sustained, even if the finding on other remaining charges is vitiated. I have considered the Question and I do not find any merit in this contention. As already observed all the 12 charges arise out of two sets of transactions, one in respect of work order Nos. 1 to 17 and the other relating to work order Nos. 18 to 30 placed by the petitioner during his posting as Assistant Mechanical Engineer. The gravamen of the charges against the petitioner was that without calling for tenders and Quotations and without following the rales he had made purchases. The remaining charges are only ancillary and subsidiary to the main charge. If the petitioner's defence that he had placed the orders and made the purchases under the instructions of R. C. P. Saxena and Raghurai Singh, the then executive engineers, who were his immediate superior officers is accepted, the remaining charges are bound to fail. A perusal of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer would show that undisclosed (material was admittedly relied upon by him in coming to the conclusion in respect of charges 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12. As regards charge No. 4. the enquiry &officer recorded a finding that that charge was not proved. The charges in respect of which the aforesaid undisclosed material was utilised by the enquiry officer are the main charges and the remaining charges are ancillary and subsidiary arising out of the main charges, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the State cannot be accepted. Once the enquiry was vitiated, it is not proper for this court to go into the details and to find out as to in respect of which charge the undisclosed material was utilised by the enquiry officer. I have already held that the procedure followed at the stage of enquiry was in (derogation of the rules of natural justice which vitiated the entire enquiry and, (therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer cannot be sustained. As regards the State Government, it has not passed any speaking order. It is not clear as to what conclusion the State (Government arrived at. We do not know j what material weighed with the State (Government in passing the order of removal against the petitioner. As regards the State Government, it has not passed any speaking order. It is not clear as to what conclusion the State (Government arrived at. We do not know j what material weighed with the State (Government in passing the order of removal against the petitioner. No findings have been recorded by the State Government in respect of each individual charges and therefore, it cannot be ascertained with any certainty that the State Government relied upon the said undisclosed material in respect of only some of the charges and not in respect of all the charges. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly urged that the impugned order of the State Government is void. According to the learned counsel State Government was acting in a quasi-judicial manner in considering the petitioner's explanation to the show cause notice and passing the order of removal and, therefore, it was under an obligation to record reasons in passing the impugned order of removal and. since the order is not a speaking order as it does not contain any reasons, it is illegal and void order. The State Government in considering the petitioner's explanation and passing the order thereon was discharging a quasi-judicial function. A duty was cast on it to act judicially as the order passed by it was bound to have serious effect on the petitioner. The State Government was required to consider and decide the charges against the petitioner objectively, on the evidence on record. It is now a firmly established principle that a quas judicial authority is required to pass speaking order containing reasons. In the absence of reasons such order is vitiated and liable to be set aside. This question was considered by a Full Bench of five Judges of our Court in Ram Murti v. State, 1970 All LJ 1177 : AIR 1971 Allahabad 54 (FB). The Full Bench, held that the State Government in exercising the powers under Section 7-F of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. performs a quasi-judicial function and any order passed by it should contain reasons. The Full Bench, held that the State Government in exercising the powers under Section 7-F of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. performs a quasi-judicial function and any order passed by it should contain reasons. The Supreme Court has more than once held that where the Government exercising the quasi-judicial powers failed to give reasons the order is void, See State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narasinghdas Jankidas Mehta, Civil Appeal No. 681 of 1966, D/d. 29.4.1969, A.I.R. 1969 NSC 115, AIR 1969 SC 1297 , Civil Appeal No. 657 (N) of 1967 (SC) Pragdass Umar Vaish v. Union of India. 22. In the present case the order of the State Government is laconic and does not contain any reasons. The order is not a speaking order. It is, therefore, void and liable to be quashed. 23. Learned Standing Counsel has however, urged that Annexure `S' to the petition, the impugned order dated 30th May, 1970, is not the order itself but it is a communication of the State Government's decision to the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel detailed reasons and findings are contained in the Secretariat file, which would show that the State Government had passed a speaking order. He has further requested me to peruse the secretariat file in support of his contention. In the first place, the respondents have not placed any other order of the State Government before me. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government, but no copy of any other order of the State Government has been filed. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit of M.P. Sharma, it has been stated that after considering all the facts and circumstances the Government issued order dated 30th May, 1970 for the petitioner's removal from service. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that there was any other order passed by the State Government cannot be accepted. As regards the request that I should peruse the relevant file of the secretariat to ascertain whether any reasons had been recorded by the State Government. I am afraid, it would not be proper for this court to peruse the secretariat file to reconstruct the order by referring to the notings contained in that file. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of I. N. Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1264. I am afraid, it would not be proper for this court to peruse the secretariat file to reconstruct the order by referring to the notings contained in that file. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of I. N. Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1264. A Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in the case of Rajendrapal v. State of Punjab, 1971 Serv LR 130 : A.I.R. 1971 Punj. 290, held that the defect of want of reasons in the order of a quasi-judicial authority could not be removed by looking into the file maintained by the Government and constructing the reasons in support of the order. The absence of reasons, therefore, in the impugned order of the State Government renders it void. 24. In the result writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order of the State Government dated 30th May, 1970. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.