JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - The petitioner, who was posted as district sales officer, Jhansi, under opposite party 2, by means of this writ petition has assailed the order of dismissal, dated 3 May 1986, passed by opposite party 2, mainly on the ground of denial of opportunity. 2. The petitioner has averred that on 29 October 1984, the opposite party 2 placed him under suspension in an inquiry relating to his absence from duty as a result of which sale at Jhansi was affected. He filed a writ petition and this Court has passed an interim order directing the opposite parties to pay full salary to the petitioner during the period of suspension. On 6 August 1985, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet levelling 19 charges, in support of which several documents were cited as evidence but according to the petitioner none of these documents was annexed with the charge-sheet or furnished to the petitioner at any stage of the inquiry. He has also alleged that the documents were never shown to the petitioner. On 6 August 1985, the petitioner addressed a letter to the enquiry officer and demanded the documents cited as evidences in the charge-sheet, but e, en then the documents were neither supplied to him nor shown to him. The enquiry officer clearly refused to supply the documents and insisted upon submission of reply to the charge-sheet at the earliest so as to complete the formalities of completing the inquiry. On 8 August 1985, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and denied the allegations. Against each charge the petitioner submitted detailed reply and pleaded not guilty. On 20 November 1985, the general manager (fertilizer) addressed a letter to the petitioner and intimated that he has been granted personal hearing by the managing director on 11 December 1985 only in respect of the charge concerning unauthorised absence from duty affecting sales work at Jhansi, but in respect of other charges no personal hearing was granted. The managing director refused to hear anything from the petitioner and insisting upon to give his case in writing. Thereafter he submitted his case to the managing director in writing and complained that the documents relied upon in support of the charge-sheet were not available to him and then on insistence of the inquiry officer he submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on the basis of memory. Thereafter he submitted his case to the managing director in writing and complained that the documents relied upon in support of the charge-sheet were not available to him and then on insistence of the inquiry officer he submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on the basis of memory. Then the managing director called for a report from the accounts officer (fertilizer) charge wise, although the accounts officer was never appointed to act as enquiry officer. On 22 January 1986, the managing director mentioned in the file that in absence of accounts officer's report charge would not he proved against the petitioner. On 29 January 1986, the accounts officer submitted a report to the managing director without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. He was not even aware that a report from the accounts officer has been called for. Copy of the report was never made available to the petitioner and he was not even informed that a report had been called for from the accounts officer. The petitioner addressed a letter to the managing director requesting for a personal hearing which was never given to him. On 3 May 1986, the managing director passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service holding all the charges proved except charges (7), (8) and (12), although the accounts officer and the enquiry officer did not find all the charges proved against the petitioner and some of them have been dropped. The said order was challenged on several grounds including that the punishing authority found charge (26) proved on the basis of evidence which was not disclosed in the impugned order, but a vague.- statement was made that charge (16) stood proved on the basis of evidence. Likewise the managing director found charges (1) and (19) as proved only on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer and accounts officer and did not apply his own mind. Charge (13) was found proved on the ground that the petitioner could not succeed in proving the evidence relied upon in the charge-sheet as false. Charge (14) was also found proved on the basis of evidence. As regards charge (18) the managing director found the petitioner guilty on the basis of the letters of regional manager and District Magistrate and complaints of district level officers, although those letters of the District Magistrate or the regional manager were never shown or given to the petitioner. Charge (14) was also found proved on the basis of evidence. As regards charge (18) the managing director found the petitioner guilty on the basis of the letters of regional manager and District Magistrate and complaints of district level officers, although those letters of the District Magistrate or the regional manager were never shown or given to the petitioner. Nature of the complaints was also never disclosed to the petitioner. The managing director also failed to specify the charge as to when the petitioner allegedly absented from duty. The managing director also found proved charges (3),(4), (5), (9), (10) and (15) as against the petitioner. While holding the charge proved he relied upon extraneous material such as the report of the accounts officer (fertilizer), letters of regional manager and the District Magistrate, Bandi, and the complaints from the district level officers, although none of these documents was given or shown to the petitioner and even was not mentioned in the charge-sheet. It was also averred that his previous record was taken into consideration while passing the order of dismissal but no opportunity was given to the petitioner to make representation in regard to that consideration. 3. Opposite party 2 did not file any counter-affidavit but on behalf of opposite parties I and 2 Kashi Nath Pathak working as company secretary, Uttar Pradesh Agro Industrial Corporation, Lucknow, filed counter-affidavit. It is averred in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner during the course of the inquiry never raised the question of denial of opportunity and the allegations of non-supply of documents, etc., are afterthought. The enquiry officer never refused to supply any document to the petitioner and the evidence cited in the charge-sheet was made available to the petitioner. But it is, however, admitted that the enquiry officer had asked the petitioner to give details about the documents as to how these documents were relevant to the charges. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and allegations made by the petitioner against the managing director are false and frivolous. No extraneous material, like alleged report of the accounts officer was made any basis of the punishment order. The enquiry officer had independently conducted the inquiry and bas submitted his report oil 14 November 1985 which was considered by the punishing authority for arriving at final conclusion in regard to the punishment awarded against the petitioner. No extraneous material, like alleged report of the accounts officer was made any basis of the punishment order. The enquiry officer had independently conducted the inquiry and bas submitted his report oil 14 November 1985 which was considered by the punishing authority for arriving at final conclusion in regard to the punishment awarded against the petitioner. Th i managing director had independently gone through the material on the record and detailed finding on each and every charge contained in the charge-sheet had been recorded by him and gave detailed reasons for arriving at a finding and conclusion regard to the punishment awarded against e petitioner and since - the charges were found to be proved punishment was awarded. It was further contended that the petitioner has another forum to raise the objections by filing an appeal before the chairman. Moreover he could have filed a claim petition before the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal which was the right forum for making such pleas of disputed questions of fact. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has placed reliance before us on the relevant files regarding the inquiry which was conducted against the petitioner. From the perusal of the said file it appears that the petitioner was given a personal hearing although in the letter, dated 20 November 1985, contained in annexure 6 it was stated that he was granted a personal hearing by the managing director on 11 December 1985, in respect of the charges concerning unauthorised absence from duty affecting sales at Jhansi but, he could have very well availed the said opportunity in explaining the entire facts and circumstances as well as the defence against the charges. If it is assumed that he was not given an opportunity of personal hearing in respect of the charges even though the delinquent cannot claim personal hearing as a matter of right. 5. The files produced before us indicate that on 8 January 1985, the managing director communicated that the accounts officer (fertilizer) had been directed to Submit a report regarding the charges levelled against the petitioner. The report which was submitted was placed in the file of the inquiry officer on 29 January 1986. 5. The files produced before us indicate that on 8 January 1985, the managing director communicated that the accounts officer (fertilizer) had been directed to Submit a report regarding the charges levelled against the petitioner. The report which was submitted was placed in the file of the inquiry officer on 29 January 1986. On 19 February 1916, the managing director has mentioned in the ordersheet the petitioner was given personal hearing and the report of the accounts officer was perused and ultimately on 3 May 1986, the order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner. Although in the counter-affidavit it was vehemently asserted that the alleged report of the accounts officer was not considered and only the report of inquiry officer was considered while awarding the punishment to the petitioner, the file of the inquiry indicates that it was perused and considered before inflicting punishment upon the petitioner. The report of the accounts officer was certainly an important document the weight of which must have prevailed upon the mind of the punishing authority while passing the order of dismissal. It has nowhere been asserted in the counter-affidavit that the copy of the report of the accounts officer, which was certainly an incriminating document against the petitioner, was ever furnished to the petitioner. The report of the accounts officer was undoubtedly extraneous material which must have been weighed in the mind of the punishing authority while passing the order and non-supply of the said report must have prejudiced the defence of the petitioner. 6. The previous record of the services of the petitioner was also taken into account by the punishing authority while passing the order of removal from service. Regarding the petitioner's absence in the meeting called by the District Magistrate while he was posted at Banda, the punishing authority relied heavily on the report of the District Magistrate and regional manager, etc., which indicated that the petitioner did not attend the meeting called by the District Magistrate and the District Agricultural Officer and on the basis of these letters and reports the punishing authority came to the conclusion that this charge stood proved against the petitioner. This finding is not only vague and indefinite and the managing director failed to give any cogent reason as to what was the nature of complaint and on whit dates the petitioner absented from date. The petitioner has clearly indicated in Para. This finding is not only vague and indefinite and the managing director failed to give any cogent reason as to what was the nature of complaint and on whit dates the petitioner absented from date. The petitioner has clearly indicated in Para. 23 of his writ petition that as regards charge (18) the managing director stated that the said charge stood proved on the basis of the letters of regional manager and the District Magistrate and the district level officers. This vague allegation cannot he accepted as the managing director failed to mention as to which were those letters of the regional manager and the District Magistrate and which of the district level officers made complaints against the petitioner. The nature of the complaints was never disclosed to the petitioner at any stage of the inquiry nor the alleged letters of the District Magistrate or the regional manager were ever shown or given to the petitioner. The counter-affidavit is completely silent and the averment made in Para. 23 of the petition has gone unrebutted. 7. The report of the inquiry officer, letters and complaints made by the District Magistrate, regional manager and district level officers appear to have been made the basis of the order of removal. It is more or less admitted that the copies of the aforesaid incriminating materials were never made available to the petitioner. It is apparent that the order of dismissal was founded on a material which the petitioner was not aware nor he was given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. It is obvious that prejudice to the petitioner lay in the very fact that the disciplinary authority had acted on the material which was not made available to the petitioner and thus the principle of natural justice has been violated. The violation of the principles of natural justice per se vitiates the inquiry. Further more the previous record of the petitioner was taken into consideration while passing the order of dismissal without giving any opportunity to make representation in regard to that con-deration. In a similar situation a Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Chandra v. Director-General, Central Reserve Police Force, 1981 L.L.T. Ser. 283.], held the order of dismissal bad in law. In a similar situation a Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Chandra v. Director-General, Central Reserve Police Force, 1981 L.L.T. Ser. 283.], held the order of dismissal bad in law. Similarly a Division Bench of this Court in Kotwal Singh Rawat v. Union of India, 1985 L. & I.C. 80.], held that punishment of removal from service on the basis of letter issued by District Magistrate after conclusion of inquiry which was not made available to the delinquent nor brought to his notice during inquiry or even thereafter constituted t114 violation of the principles of natural justice. Relying on Kotwal Singh, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 818 and A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 136. (ride supra), quashed the dismissal order. A Division Bench of this Court in Pashupati Dayal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1988 1 S.C.D. 95.], held that where in reply to shoe cause notice the Government servant submitted his reply and asserted that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to explain and was denied to cross-examine the witnesses and the statement of the witnesses were changed. the punishing authority is bound to decide the allegations raised in the reply and record a finding prior to passing final order. 8. A perusal of the order passed by the; punishing authority indicates that the defence of the petitioner was not considered and no finding was given in spite of the, fact that the petitioner had asserted that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to explain and the copies of the material documents were not furnished to hint. 9. In view of what has been stated here in above, we are of the opinion that the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. Hence the writ petition if allowed and the order of dismissal, dated 3 May 1986, passed by the opposite party 2 contained in annexure 10 to the writ petition is quashed and the opposite parties are directed to treat the petitioner in service on the post of district sales officer with all the benefits arising therefrom, but, hots ever, it is made clear that the opposite parties may proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law by holding the proceedings of the inquiry de novo from the stage of submission of the charge-sheets. No order as to costs.