JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of dismissal dated 10-5-89, contained in annexure no. X, passed against him. He has also prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus creating the petitioner in service with the consequential benefits be also issued. 2. The petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer (Mech)/Manager in Cold Storage Jaya district Moradabad was served with a charge-sheet and in contemplation of an enquiry, was also suspended. The relevant regulation 85 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulation 1975 (herein- after referred to as Regulation) which deals with an elaborate procedure for the enquiry reads as under : "The disciplinary proceedings against an employee shall be conducted by the Inquiring officer (referred to in clause (iv) below) with due observance of the principles of natural justice for which it shall be necessary that- (a) the employee shall be served with a charge-sheet containing specific charges and mention of evidence in support of each charge and he shall also be required to submit explanation in respect of the charges within reasonable time which shall not be less than fifteen days ; (b) Such an employee shall also be given an opportunity to produce at his own cost or to cross-examine witnesses in his defence and shall be given an opportunity of being heard in person, if he so desires; On 7-2-87 the petitioner submitted his explanation and demanded an opportunity to produce evidence, cross-examine the witness and also requested that certain copies of the documents be furnished to him. He also requested that as to whether the potatoes were spoiled in the Cold Storage due to his negligence or certain technical defects be enquired by an expert. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer Sri G. A. Mishra concluded the enquiry without affording any reasonable opportunity to him. Thereafter, a show cause notice was served to the petitioner without accompanying a copy of the said enquiry report. The petitioner then submitted a representation to the Administrator U P, Co-operative Processing and Cold Storage Federation Ltd /Registrar U P. Cooperative Societies Vidhaa Sabha Marg, Lucknow, opposite party no. 1. According to the averments, made in the writ petition, opposite party no. The petitioner then submitted a representation to the Administrator U P, Co-operative Processing and Cold Storage Federation Ltd /Registrar U P. Cooperative Societies Vidhaa Sabha Marg, Lucknow, opposite party no. 1. According to the averments, made in the writ petition, opposite party no. 1 found force in the representation and agreed to set up and conduct a fresh enquiry. The orders of opposite party no. 1 dated 8-6-38 were communicated by opposite party no. 2. On 10th June, 1988 Sri a. R. Yadav, Matnaging Director U P. Co-operative Processing Cold Storage Federation Ltd. on perusal of the explanation directed Sri R. N. Dwivedi, General Manager (Administration). It was mentioned to hold a detailed enquiry that after a retailed enquiry the report be submitted to opposite party no. 1, within fifteen cays. It was also provided that at the time of enquiry the petitioner will be given a personal hearing. The petitioner has averred that neither Sri R. N. Dwivedi served any charge-sheet afresh to the petitioner nor he informed the petitioner about the date of hearing He also did not give any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit any explanation, produce evidence or cross-examine the witnesses. Actually no proceeding ever took place. The petitioner thereafter again submitted a representation but the same was not returned. The petitioner then approached the State Government and the State Government directed opposite party no 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner on merits and it was averred that thereafter opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 pressurized the Institutional Service Selection Board to accord an approval for the dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner, then was constrained to file a writ petition before the High Court but on 19-5-89 the counsel for the respondents produced, the Enquiry Report of Enquiry Officer namely Sri R. N. Dwivedi and also dismissal order was also produced before the Bench which passed the following order, "This writ petition is directed against the disciplinary proceeding Sri Kamlesh Singh Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties pointed out and shown the orders, by means of which the service of the petitioner has been dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed." 3. On behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 one Counter-affidavit and another supplementary affidavit was filed which was sworn by Sri R. N. Dwivedi. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed." 3. On behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 one Counter-affidavit and another supplementary affidavit was filed which was sworn by Sri R. N. Dwivedi. In the counter-affidavit it has been averred that no fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed. Only detailed Enquiry was directed to be conducted by Sri R. N. Dwivedi on the existing evidence and charges, already submitted by the Enquiry Officer. It was further averred by Sri R. N. Dwivedi that he was not appointed as a fresh Enquiry Officer and as such no charge-sheet was served by him. But the personal hearing was only given just to scrutinize as to whether opportunity was given or not. Thus there was need to comply with the formalities of Regulation 85 of service Regulation. He admitted that out of ten charges, all could not be established but on two charges the petitioner was found guilty. As such the dismissal order was passed. It was further averred that after the approval which was given by opposite party no. 4 the order of dismissal was passed. 4. In the Supplementary Counter-Affidavit it was averred that Sri G. S. Mishra General 'Pacsfed' was appointed Enquiry Officer vide annexure no. IV to the writ petition. He served charge-sheet dated 22-8-87. The Enquiry Officer after full opportunity to the petitioner concluded the enquiry and submitted his report on 16-10-87. The report was sent for approval to the Administrator 'Pacsfed' who is also the Registrater (Opposite Party No. 1). The petitioner scented that report and preferred a representation to the Registrar alleging that no opportunity was given to him during the course of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. The Administrator 'Pacsfed'/Registrar U. P. Co-operative Societies (opposite party no 1) in the end of justice for his own satisfaction set up an internal enquiry but did not appoint an Enquiry Officer to enquire whether opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer during the course of enquiry or not ? In consequence the deponent (R. N. Dwivedi) conducted an internal enquiry and submitted his report, contained in annexure no. IX to the writ petition. In consequence the deponent (R. N. Dwivedi) conducted an internal enquiry and submitted his report, contained in annexure no. IX to the writ petition. It was further averred that he (R. N. Dwivedi) was only an Internal Enquiry Officer for making the internal report to the Administrator to facilitate him with the facts only, in order to take a right decision on the representation of the petitioner and the dismissal order. He submitted his detailed confidential report after interview of the petitioner and review of the entire facts on records produced by the petitioner. Actually annexure no. IX to the writ petition is not an Enquiry Report, made by an Inquiry Officer but is merely an internal confidential report, addressed to the Administrator for his satisfaction in the light of the allegation, made by the petitioner in his representation. A perusal of annexure no. Vii to the writ petition, indicates that on the perusal of the explanation, submitted by the petitioner, opposite party no I directed that the enquiry against the petitioner be conducted by Sri R. N. dwivedi afresh and submit his report within fifteen days after completion of the entire enquiry. It was further mentioned that during the course of the enquiry the petitioner will be given an opportunity of personal hearing. 5. In view of the order, passed by opposite party no. 1 which was communicated by Sri R.S, Yadav, Managing Director of opposite party no. 1, it does not lie in the mouth of opposite parties to state that Sri R. N. Dwivedi was not appointed an Investigating Officer to hold an enquiry afresh. The report of the Enquiry Officer Sri R. N. Dwivedi dated 23 -7-88 clearly indicates that he had discussed and considered all the charges which were levelled against the petitioner as well as the explanation, submitted by the petitioner against the charge-sheet in great detail. In the concluding part of his report he stated that after the examination of the charges as well as the explanation, submitted by the petitioner, it was clear that the potatoes which were kept into the damaged Cold Storage under the orders of General Manager (Administration), it was not possible for the Manager (petitioner) to refuse to keep it into the Cold Storage. It appears that due to certain fault in the machine and irregular supply of the Electricity, (Manager Petitioner) lost control and balance of his mind. The storage of the potatoes m one Chamber of both the damaged Cold Storage, and due to the fault in the machinery as well as irregular supply of electricity, the spoiling of the potatoes was natural. It would be wrong to state that the Manager (Petitioner) did not make any effort for the safety of the potatoes even when the cooperation of the Operators was not available to him. The submission of the Manager (Petitioner) that in the near future, there would be a defect in the Machinery as well as supply of electricity, would be irregular (At the time the potatoes were kept in the Cold Storage) was beyond imagination, appears to be correct. The refusal to store the potatoes would have been improper but it was also his duty to report to the Headquarter from time to time regarding the possibilities of spoiling of the potatoes, for making an effort to save the potatoes from being spoiled. Even although he (Petitioner) was not guilty but he could not be said to be not guilty. 6. A perusal of the enquiry report of Sri G. S. Mishra, dated 16-10- 1987, submitted to the Managing Director also indicates that the petitioner was also served with a charge-sheet and his explanation was brought on record, but inspite of the fact that he had requested the authorities for obtaining a report from an expert with regard to the Machinery of the Cola Storage, no report from an expert was obtained. He had also made a request for cross- examination of the witnesses and to adduce evidence in defence of the charges, but the Enquiry Report indicates that no oral enquiry was ever conducted. The witnesses were neither produced, to support the allegations, contained in the cherge-sheet nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to show cause. He was also not allowed to produce his evidence. The witnesses were neither produced, to support the allegations, contained in the cherge-sheet nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to show cause. He was also not allowed to produce his evidence. The Enquiry Officer Sri G. S. Misra only considered the charges and the explanation of the petitioner in his report and found him guilty in his report, the Regulation 85, quoted above, clearly lays down an elaborate procedure for the enquiry but the report of Sri G. S. Misra, indicates that no reasonable opportunity, as contemplated in the Regulation 85, was ever afforded to the petitioner. It seems that the opposite party no. 1 after perusing the charges, the explanation as well as the reply to show cause nonce became satisfied that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, hence the order lor holding the enquiry afresh by Shri K. N. Dwivedi. It is unfortune that Shri R. N. Dwivedi without holding an enquiry afresh also proceeded to submit his report on the basis of the charge levelled in the charge-sheet and explanation submitted by the petitioner. Neither any witness was produced to substantiate the allegations, contained in the FIR nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to produce evidence in his defence. Although it has been mentioned that Sri R. N. Dwivedi interviewed the petitioner but an interview cannot take the place of a fulfledged departmental enquiry. The Managing Director of U. P. Co-operative Processing and Cold Storage Federation cormmuitteed a manifest error of law in passing an order of dismissal on the basis of the report submitted by the two Inquiry Officers. In the order of dismissal dated 10th of May, 1989 opposite party no. 2 admitted that on the request of the petitioner for holding an enquiry by another officer the opposite party No. 1 granted permission for re-examination of the matter. Thereafter on 10-6-88 Sri R. N. Dwivedi was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the said I. O. was directed to submit his report within fifteen days. It was also indicated in the order that after affording personal hearing the Investigating Officer submitted his report dated 23-7-88 and after its examination the opposite party no. 1 took a decision that there existed no justification to alter the punishment, contained in the show cause notice. It was also indicated in the order that after affording personal hearing the Investigating Officer submitted his report dated 23-7-88 and after its examination the opposite party no. 1 took a decision that there existed no justification to alter the punishment, contained in the show cause notice. The order further reads that the personal file of the petitioner as well as the file pertaining to the enquiry was sent to the Institutional Service Selection Board for obtaining the approval and by means of the letter dated 2-5-89 the Board granted approval for the dismissal of the petitioner, hence the petitioner with effect from the date of the order was dismissed from service. The order, passed by the Opposite Party, suffers from manifest error of law for the reason of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the charges, no oral enquiry was ever conducted to substantiate the charges and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witness and produce his evidence in his defence. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witness and produce his evidence in his defence. The petitioner was also not served with a show cause notice by Sri R. N. dwivedi, although he was ordered to hold the enquiry afresh. Opposite party no. 2 in the order of dismissal even did not care to state that he had agreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer. He did not even care to examine that Sr R. N. Dwivedi in his enquiry report did not find the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. He passed the order of dismissal in a most mechanical and casual manner. If it is assumed for the argument sake that Sri R. N. Dwivedi was not appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry afresh but was entrusted only to examine the proceedings of the enquiry, conducted by Sri G. S. Mishra to the effect as to whether any opportunity was given to the petitioner or not and it was only an internal departmental enquiry although such an averment is not borne out from the order date June 10, 1988, contained in annexure no. VII to the writ petition, even then the order of dismissal is vitiated for the reason that the copy of the said report was not furnished to the petitioner and he was not given an opportunity to show cause against the same. It is a settled law that a delinquent is entitled for the copies of all the incriminating documents which form the basis of the order of dismissal but in the present case the copy of the report of sri R. N. Dwivedi was not furnished to the petitioner. a vain effort has been made in the supplementary counter affidavit, filed by the opposite parties to justify this lapse on the part of the Enquiry Officer as well as Punishing Authority by stating that the internal report to opposite party no. 1 was aimed to facilitate him with facts, in order to take right decision on the representation of the petitioner. A perusal of the order of dismissal contained in annexure no. X to the writ petition, clearly indicates that the punishing Authority considered the report of Sri R. N. Dwivedi and after its examination the petition was dismissed. After its examination, the Punishing Authority came to conclusion that there existed no necessity for altering the punishment which was proposed against the petitioner. Thus it is clear that the report of Sri R. N. Dwivedi formed the basis of the said order and it must have wighed in the mind of the Punishing Authority awarding the punishment of dismissal. Thus the petitioner was denied an opportunity to show cause against the said report even if the same could be termed as an internal confidential enquiry and not a ful-fledged enquiry report. 7. The order of dismissal is further vitiated for the reason of the fact that the copies of the enquiry reports of Sri G. S. Mishra dated 16, 1987 and the report of Sri R. N. Dwivedi dated 23-7-88 were not furnished to the petitioner. In a very recent judgment in Union of India v. Mohd. Ram Zamkhan in JT 1990 (4) SC 456, Hon'b'e the Chief Justice Mr. Rangnath Mishra speaking on behalf of the Bench indicated. In a very recent judgment in Union of India v. Mohd. Ram Zamkhan in JT 1990 (4) SC 456, Hon'b'e the Chief Justice Mr. Rangnath Mishra speaking on behalf of the Bench indicated. "We make it clear that wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter.'' The principles enunciated in the aforesaid case are applicable to the present case as well. For the reason, that the petitioner was not furnished with the copies of enquiry reports, submitted by the two Enquiry Officers to the Punishing Authority, which form the basis of the dismissal order, the principle of natural justice as well as Regulation 84 (iii) was given a good bye and for the reason that the show cause into notice was not accompanied with the copy of the Enquiry Reports the order of dismissal is vitiated and cannot be sustained. 8. As this writ petition succeeds on the points, mentioned above, there exists no reason for this Court to travel on other grounds, raised by the petitioner in his writ petition. In view of the what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order of dismissal dated 10-5-89, contained in annexure no. X is issued. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued, directing the opposite parties to treat the petitioner in service with consequential benefits. No order as to the costs. Petition allowed.