Mahinder Narain,j. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition notice to show cause was issuedon 22/01/1987. An affidavit showing cause has been filed, and withthe consent of the parties, the matter is being disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he was employed as a Juniorengineer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi w. e. f. 12/03/1984 videannexure P. 3. After joining Municipal Corporation, the petitioner was postedin the City Zone. that is to say an area with respect to old Delhi. The petitionersays that his services were terminated by an order dated 24/07/1986 (annexure P. 1), and an appeal therefrom was disposed of by anon-speakingorder dated 18/11/1986, which is annexure P. 2. The petitioner saysthat the reason for dismissal was that it was alleged against him that in Houseno. 2434, Chhipiwara Kalan, Delhi, which property fell within his jurisdictionas Junior Engineer of the Municipal Corporation, some internal structuralalterations were made between 1970 and 1984. In fact, the petitioner says thatwhile he was new at his job on 31/01/1985, an Inspector of Vigilancewent to the site along with him as complaints had been received regarding unauthorised alterations having been made in the said property. The petitionerasserts that prior to that, neither the petitioner nor the Building Department ofthe City Zone had received any written complaint or verbal complaint fromanybody regarding the alterations having been made inside the said house. Itis further asserted that these internal alterations were not visible from the roadside. The petitioner stated that according to the Building Bye-laws several typesof repairs can be carried on by house owners without the sanction of themunicipal authorities. The provisions of Rule 6. 4. 1 of the Delhi Building Bye-laws which was reproduced in the writ petition, reads as under :- "6. 4. 1no notice and building permit is necessary for the followingalterations, which do not otherwise violate any provisions regardinggeneral building requirements, structural stability and fire safetyrequirements of the Bye-laws :- (a) Plastering and patch repairs ; (b) Re-roofing or renewal of proof including roof of intermediatefloor at the same height ; (c) Flooring and re-flooring ; (d) Opening and closing windows, ventilators and doors not openingtowards other s property; (e) Replacing fallen bricks, stones, pillars, beams, etc. ; (f ) Construction or re-construction of sun-shade not more than 75cm. ; (f ) Construction or re-construction of sun-shade not more than 75cm. in which within one s own land and not over-hanging over apublic street; (g) Construction or re-construction of parapet exceeding I m. andnot more than 1. 5m. in height and also construction or reconstruction of boundary walls as permissible under these bye-laws ; (h) Re-construction of portions of buildings damaged by storm,rains, fire, earth-quake or any other natural calamity to thesame extent and specification as existed prior to the damage,provided the use conforms to provisions of Master Plan ; (i) White washing, painting etc. including erection of false ceilingin any floor at the permissible clear ht. provided the false ceilingin no way can be put to use as a loft/mezz. etc. : (j) Erection or re-erection of internal partitions provided the sameare within the purview of the bye-laws. "it was asserted that in the property internal partition walls could be re-erectedwithout prior permission or sanction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In any case. the petitioner avers that till the date of filing of the writ petition,the Corporation had not taken any action against the alleged alterations madein the said building. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on 31/01/1985which was accompanied by the statement of charge. The charge-sheet isannexed as annexure P. 5 to the writ petition. The relevant charges indicatethat the petitioner was accused of having committed grave misconduct, andfailed to maintain devotion of duty and absolute integrity, inasmuch as hefailed to detect the alleged unauthorised construction. The charges had furthermentioned that the petitioner had joined his duties in the City Zone on 1 5/06/1980, and that enquiries made had revealed that the alleged constructionhad commenced and had been completed much before 14/01/1984. ( 4 ) ON receipt of the charge-sheet, and the assertions therein containedthat the unauthorised construction had been made before 14/01/1984,and as the petitioner had joined the duty of the Corporation only on 1 2/03/1984, the petitioner, in his reply to the charge-sheet, asserted that hecould not possibly be held guilty with respect to any construction which wasdone prior to his employment in the Municipal Corporation. In spite of thisbeing pointed out by the petitioner in answer to the charge-sheet that thealterations/construction had taken place prior to his joining duties, the chargeswere not dropped and the enquiry proceeded, byexamination of vigilanceinspector Mr. In spite of thisbeing pointed out by the petitioner in answer to the charge-sheet that thealterations/construction had taken place prior to his joining duties, the chargeswere not dropped and the enquiry proceeded, byexamination of vigilanceinspector Mr. S. P. Jain who categorically stated that the petitioner was workingin the City Zone w. e. f. 15/06/1980, and that the construction had beencarried out prior to 14/01/1984. Mr. S. P. Jain had further stated at theenquiry that on 31/01/1985 when he and the petitioner visited the site,no construction was going on and there was no building material seen at thesite. He further stated that no effort was made to determine the date of com-mencement of construction. ( 5 ) THE Municipal Corporation apparently realised its mistake, andduring the course of the enquiry proceedings sent a corrigendum, which isannexed to the writ as annexure P. 9, which was designed to alter the date ofpetitioner s employment in the original charge-sheet to 15/06/1984, andfurther sought to alter the date of completion of construction to 14/01/1985 instead of 14/01/1984. ( 6 ) THE Municipal Corporation has not disputed the correctness of theseaverments which had been made. ( 7 ) IT is obvious that the effect of the corrigendum would be to make outa new charge against the petitioner. However, the earlier enquiry was notterminated and new enquiry was not commenced against the petitioner. Thecorrigendum substantially altered the charge against the petitioner. No newenquiry was held. Mr. S. P. Jain witness was re-called in the continued enquiryon 3/04/1986, and he further gave evidence which supported the corrigendum. The enquiry ultimately resulted in the aforesaid order of dismissaldated 24/07/1986. which was confirmed by an order dated 18/11/1986. The result of this enquiry cannot obviously besustained. When thecharge has been substantially altered, it has to be tried de novo. The enquiryheld and continued on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 31/01/1985and continued by incorporating the distinct charge, the subject-matter of thecorrigendum dated 4/03/1986, is no enquiry at all as the petitioner hasbeen denied an opportunity to meet the amended charge, as amended by thecorrigendum. He has not been peritmted to file reply to the amended charge. This being the case, the petitioner not having been given the opportunity todefend himself, the entire enquiry proceedings are bad in law, and the order oftermination dated 24/07/1986 as well as the appellate order dated 1 8/11/1986 have to be quashed. He has not been peritmted to file reply to the amended charge. This being the case, the petitioner not having been given the opportunity todefend himself, the entire enquiry proceedings are bad in law, and the order oftermination dated 24/07/1986 as well as the appellate order dated 1 8/11/1986 have to be quashed. ( 8 ) THIS writ petition succeeds, and the order of termination dated 2 4/07/1986 as well as the appeltate order dated 18/11/1986 are quashed. and it is declared that the petitioner continues in service of the respondentcorporation, and is entitled to all the benefits consequential to his being inservice. ( 9 ) THERE shall, however, be no order as to costs.