K. C. BHARGAVA, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 24-11-1988. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal on 3-1-1971. Thereafter he was placed under suspension on 24-12-1s87 and charge-sheet was issued to him. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 12-7-1988. It is alleged that the Inquiry Officer did not follow the principles of natural justice while conducting the Inquiry. In all five charges were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was not allowed any opportunity during the course of inquiry to produce wit nessed and documentary evidence. 3. The petitioner met with an accident, for which he had to take casual leave w. e. f. 1-1-1988 to 7-1- 1988. As there was no relief he again went to the hospital and remained there from 11-1-1988 to 28-1- 1988. In the accident he sustained fracture of his knee and had to remain on bed upto 21st Juno, 1988 and he used to send medical certificates to the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer has nowhere mentioned in his report that the petitioner did not submit medical certificate. The inquiry report is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It has also been wrongly mentioned that Supervisor Kanungo himself went to serve the suspension order and charge-sheet and the same were refused by the petitioner. At that time the petitioner was in the District Hospital, Pratapgarh. The petitioner was not given any subsistence allowance during pendency of the inquiry right from the date of suspension till the conclusion of inquiry. 4. After the report of the Inquity Officer was submitted, a show-cause notice was issued by the opp. party No. 2 asking the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed. The petitioner submitted his reply stating all the facts. Thereafter the petitioner submitted another reply giving certain facts left out in the earlier explanation. This fact was brought to the notice of opp. pary No. 2 that the observations of the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner refused to give any evidence by writing, was wrong as it was got written by the Inquiry Officer himself on account of the coercion on the pretext that in case he gives in writing the case may be reconsidered. pary No. 2 that the observations of the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner refused to give any evidence by writing, was wrong as it was got written by the Inquiry Officer himself on account of the coercion on the pretext that in case he gives in writing the case may be reconsidered. The Induiry Officer had recommended that only one adverse entry should be given to the petitioner, but he has been dismissed from service. 5. The record of the Court shows that counter-affidavit is not on record, even though it was stated by the learned Standing Counsel that the counter-affidavit has been filed. The Court directed the State counsel to file the counter-affidavit, but no counter-affidavit is on record. Therefore, a copy of the counter-affidavit was taken from the learned State counsel and arguments were concluded. 6. In the counter-affidavit it has been alleged that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on 22- 10-1988. It is wrong to say that he was dismissed by order dated 24-11-1988. The petitioner refused to accept the copy of the dismissal order. Therefore, it was got published in the daily newspaper nav Bharat Times, Lucknow dated 26-10-1988. The petitioner was suspended on account of grave charges. Tahsildar, Patti was appoin ted Inquiry Officer, who submitted the inquiry report. Full opportunity was given to the petitioner, but he produced only one witness Chhotey Lal Yadav and no other witness or document was produced by the peti tioner. The petitioner was going on scooter for his personal work when he got hurt. He did not apply for casual leave from 1-1-1988 to 7-1-1988. It is wrong to say that he remained on leave during this period. It is admitted that he remained in the hospital from 11-1-1988 to 28-1-1988. It is wrong to say that he was confined to bed upto 21st June, 1988. A copy of the order was sought to be served on the petitioner but he refused to accept the same. The petitioner did not produce any certificate that he did not work anywhere during the period of suspension, therefore, subsistence allowance was not paid, to him. Alongwith the show-cause notice the report of the Inquiry Officer was also given to the petitioner, which he has filed alongwith the writ petition. 7. The petitioner did not produce any certificate that he did not work anywhere during the period of suspension, therefore, subsistence allowance was not paid, to him. Alongwith the show-cause notice the report of the Inquiry Officer was also given to the petitioner, which he has filed alongwith the writ petition. 7. In the rejoinder-affidavit it is alleged that it is wrong to say that the opposite parties made an attempt to serve the dismissal order. No copy of the dismissal order was served on him and thus he was deprived from approaching this Court. The petitioner was not afforded any oppor tunity as he was declared relieved in absentia w. e. f. 14-1-1988. The Inquiry Officer was under pressure of the higher authorities, therefore, be was forced to ask the petitioner to sign on a blank paper. On this paper Registrar Kanungo himself got written that the petitioner did not want to lead any evidence nor he wanted to cross- examine the witnesses. The petitioner signed on that paper on the assurance of the Inquiry Officer that in case he signs the paper then he will be relieved from all the charges. The petitioner met with an accident when he was going to attend a Special Family Planning Camp. It was wrong to say that the petitioner was going for his personal work. It is also wrong to say that no casual leave application was sent by the petitioner. The allegations to the contrary are incorrect. The medical certificate sent by the petitioner to the Inquiry Officer was not accepted by the authorities on the pretext that the petitioner was under suspension and wrong conclusions have been drawn in this regard. It is also wrong to say that the petitioner did not submit requisite certificate that he did not work at any place during his suspension period. The petitioner was never summoned or never asked to take the subsistence allowance. Opposite parties could have asked for the requisite certificate from the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel have been heard. 9. The first point which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given any subsistence allowance till the conclusion of the inquiry and as such the whole inquiry is vitiated. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel have been heard. 9. The first point which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given any subsistence allowance till the conclusion of the inquiry and as such the whole inquiry is vitiated. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has argued that the petitioner did not furnish requisite certificate that he was not employed anywhere during the period of suspension, therefore he was not paid subsistence allowance. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner ever refused to give the certificate or the certificate of being not employed anywhere-else was demanded by the opposite parties. It was the duty of the opposite parties to have given subsistence allowance to the petitioner from the date of suspension till the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings. Since the subsistence allowance was not paid, the entire inquiry has been vitiated. 10. In the case of Ghanshyam Das Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 1183 , it was held that non-payment of subsistence allowance will vitiate the inquiry. In the case of State of Maharashtra v Chandra Bhan, 1994 UPLBEC 722, it was held, relying on the case of Ghanshyam Das (supra) that any departmental enquiry made without pay ment of subsistence allowance contrary to the provision for its payment is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Both these decisions have been followed by this Court in the case of S. S. Verma v. U. P, Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. , Lucknow and others, 1988 (6) LCD 247. It was held that if no subsistence allowance has been paid then the order of punishment will have to be quashed. Undisputedly, no subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner during the course of disciplinary proceedings. 11. In the present case it is admitted fact that no subsistence allow ance was paid during pendency of the inquiry. Therefore, the inquiry proceedings stand vitiated. There is no force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner did not submit requisite certificate to the Inquiry Officer to the effect that he did not work any where during the period of suspension, therefore, subsistence allowance was not paid. Therefore, the inquiry proceedings stand vitiated. There is no force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner did not submit requisite certificate to the Inquiry Officer to the effect that he did not work any where during the period of suspension, therefore, subsistence allowance was not paid. There is nothing on record to suggest that this certificate was ever demanded from the petitioner or it was informed to him that his subsistence allowance could not be paid to him on account of non-furnishing of the requisite certificate. It is the duty of the opposite parties to pay the subsistence allowance and if the certificate was required in this connection, the petitioner should have been asked to submit the same. 12. Learned counsel has argued that non-payment of subsistence allowance cannot be a ground for setting aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner. According to him, the order for payment or non- payment of subsistence allowance can be passed by the punishing authority in the final order which is to be passed by the authority. This contention cannot be sustained. If subsistence allowance is not paid during the inquiry proceedings then it deprives the delinquent of defending his case. There is no evidence on record to show that the delinquent could have partici pated in the inquiry proceedings without payment of subsistence allowance. Subsistence allowance has to be paid if the delinquent is under suspen sion. Therefore, this argument of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. Thus, on the basis of facts on record, it is apparent that no subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner by the opposite parties and as such the entire enquiry stands vitiated and the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that five charges were levelled against the petitioner and keeping in view the seriousness of the charges the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner is severe in nature. It is not necessary for this Court to enter into this controversy in view of the order which is going to be passed. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Inquiry Officer has wrongly mentioned in his report that the petitioner did not apply for leave. The inquiry report dated 30-7-198$ by Tehsildar Patti goes to show that the petitioner had given applications for leave alongwith medical certificates. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Inquiry Officer has wrongly mentioned in his report that the petitioner did not apply for leave. The inquiry report dated 30-7-198$ by Tehsildar Patti goes to show that the petitioner had given applications for leave alongwith medical certificates. When the medical certificates are on the file, it cannot be believed that the petitioner would have not applied for leave. This fact also gets falsified from the inquiry report. At page 17 of the paper-book, the period for which, leave was recommended, has also been men tioned in the inquiry report. When the leave was already recommended then it cannot be said that the leave was not applied for. Therefore, it is established that the petitioner was on leave and the inquiry could not have been conducted ex pane. 15. The Inquiry Officer has further mentioned that once the petitioner stood suspended, there was no occasion to grant leave. This observation is wrong. Even if the petitioner was suspended, he continues to be Government servant and can avail of the leave which is due to him. There operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. , Lucknow and others, 1988 (6) LCD 247. It was held that if no subsistence allowance has been paid then the order of punishment will have to be quashed. Undisputedly, no subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner during the course of disciplinary proceedings. 11. In the present case it is admitted fact that no subsistence allow ance was paid during pendency of the inquiry. Therefore, the inquiry proceedings stand vitiated. There is no force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner did not submit requisite certificate to the Inquiry Officer to the effect that he did not work any where during the period of suspension, therefore, subsistence allowance was not paid. There is nothing on record to suggest "that this certificate was ever demanded from the petitioner or it was informed to him that his subsistence allowance could not be paid to him on account of non-furnishing of the requisite certificate. It is the duty of the opposite parties to pay the subsistence allowance and if the certificate was required in this connection, the petitioner should have been asked to submit the same. 12. It is the duty of the opposite parties to pay the subsistence allowance and if the certificate was required in this connection, the petitioner should have been asked to submit the same. 12. Learned counsel has argued that non-payment of subsistence allowance cannot be a ground for setting aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner. According to him, the order for payment or non- payment of subsistence allowance can be passed by the punishing authority in the final order which is to be passed by the authority. This contention cannot be sustained. If subsistence allowance is not paid during the inquiry proceedings then it deprives the delinquent of defending his case. There is no evidence on record to show that the delinquent could have partici pated in the inquiry proceedings without payment of subsistence allowance. Subsistence allowance has to be paid if the delinquent is under suspen sion. Therefore, this argument of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. Thus, on the basis of facts on record, it is apparent that no subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner by the opposite parties and as such the entire enquiry stands vitiated and the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that five charges were levelled against the petitioner and keeping in view the seriousness of the charges the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner is severe in nature. It is not necessary for this Court to enter into this controversy in view of the order which is going to be passed. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Inquiry Officer has wrongly mentioned in his report that the petitioner did not apply for leave. The inquiry report dated 30-7-1988 by Tehsildar Patti goes to show that the petitioner had given applications for leave alongwith medical certificates. When the medical certificates are on the file, it cannot be believed that the petitioner would have not applied for leave. This fact also gets falsified from the inquiry report. At page 17 of the paper-book, the period for which, leave was recommended, has also been men tioned in the inquiry report. When the leave was already recommended then it cannot be said that the leave was not applied for. Therefore, it is established that the petitioner was on leave and the inquiry could not have been conducted exparte. 15. At page 17 of the paper-book, the period for which, leave was recommended, has also been men tioned in the inquiry report. When the leave was already recommended then it cannot be said that the leave was not applied for. Therefore, it is established that the petitioner was on leave and the inquiry could not have been conducted exparte. 15. The Inquiry Officer has further mentioned that once the petitioner stood suspended, there was no occasion to grant leave. This observation is wrong. Even if the petitioner was suspended, he continues to be Government servant and can avail of the leave which is due to him. Therefore, when the petitioner had applied for leave, which was also recom mended by the authority concerned, the Inquiry Officer could not have proceeded with the inquiry. In absence of the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer should have postponed the enquiry for sufficient time in order that the petitioner could have participated in the inquiry after he became medi cally fit. Therefore, on this ground also the order of dismissal is to be quashed because no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself during the course of enquiry. 16. It is not necessary to deal with the contention of the petitioner that on a blank paper the signatures of the petitioner was obtained and the application was written by the Registrar Kanungo. Even that appli cation has not been placed on record along with the counter-affidavit to show that the petitioner has given up his right to participate in the enquiry. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order of dismissal dated 24-11-1988 is quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service and he shall be paid arrears of salary for the period he was under suspension. Monthly salary shall also be paid to him as and when it becomes due. Compliance of this order be made within one month from today. Petition allowed. .