Judgment : A.P. Singh 1. MAHESH Kumar Pandey, petitioner has approached this court by invoking its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for questioning the legality of the order of his removal from service on the ground that he was denied opportunity of defending himself against the charges on which he has been awarded the punishment of removal from service. 2. BOTH, in the writ petition and also at the bar through counsel the petitioner has complained against (a) non-supply of the copy of complaint on which the charge-sheets were framed against him, (b) non-supply of the copies of way-bills and blank book to him on the basis of which the charges have been found proved against him, (c) non-examination of passengers including non- supply of their statement of any, who according to the allegations made in the charge-sheets were being carried by the petitioners in the buses conducted by him on all the six occasions, (d) non-examination of the drivers of the buses in which petitioner working as conductor was allegedly carrying passengers without issuing tickets including non-supply of their statements, if any (e) non- application of mind by the appointing authority as also by the appellate authority respectively while awarding the impugned punishment of removal to the petitioner and while rejecting petitioner's appeal (ft vagueness of the charges which were levelled on him resulting in the passing of the impugned dismissal order inasmuch as the allegations constituting the charges did not refer breach of any service rule by the petitioner which prejudiced petitioner in defending himself, (g) and lastly that the punishing authority while awarding the punishment took into account also those charges which the Enquiry Officer had found not proved against the petitioner though he did not express his disagreement with the report of the Enquiry-Officer. All these points which have been taken by the petitioner and pressed in the argument by his learned counsel were also taken by the petitioner in his appeal which he filed before the appellate authority for challenging the removal order in the departmental appeal; most of these points except those which are directed against the appointing authority were also taken by the petitioner in his explanation which he filed in reply to the show cause notice before that authority. His complaint is that neither the appointing authority, who awarded the punishment of removal nor the appellate authority while rejecting his appeal applied their mind to the points raised by him and both of them mechanically passed the impugned order of his removal from service. 3. BEFORE the points raised by petitioner and the arguments advanced by his learned counsel are considered it is necessary to notice the facts of the case which are as follows : Petitioner was appointed Bus Conductor in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereafter called 'the Corporation'. He was charged with (a) carrying unauthorised passengers in the buses which were being conducted by him on as many as six occasions respectively on 13.6.84, 4.2.85, 15.10.86, 22.8.87, 19.9.87 28.7.88, (b) misbehaving with officers checking the buses, (c) causing obstruction in checking of buses inasmuch as not making available to the officer checking the buses the way-bills and the blank-books, (d) tearing off the way-bill so as to destroy evidence of checking and lastly, (e) issuing tickets to passengers at the time of the checking of the bus by the checking officer. All these allegations of misconduct committed by the petitioner were reported by the officer checking the respecting buses which were being conducted by the petitioner on different occasions between 13.6.84 to 28.7.88 in Bareilly Region of the Corporation. On the basis of the checking reports the appointing authority, as has been stated by the Corporation in its counter-affidavit, issued as many as four charge-sheets and served them on the petitioner respectively on 1.8.84 relating to incident dated 13.6.84, on 6.9.86 in respect of incident dated 4.2.85, on 5.12.87 respect of incidents dated 15.10.86, 22.8.87 and 19.9.87 and lastly on 17.8.88 in respect of incident dated 28.7.88. Petitioner filed his reply to each of the charge-sheets which were served on him denying the charges levelled on him as also challenging the correctness of the version (facts given) in each of the charge- sheets. BEFORE giving reply to the charges levelled on him to each of the charge- sheets he demanded the copies of the reports of the checking officer and the documents including way-bills and blank books on which the charges were based so as to give effective reply of the charges levelled on him in the four charge-sheets which however was not supplied to him. After petitioner's reply was received the appointing authority appointed the Assistant Regional Manager, Moradabad to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner into the charges levelled on him. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and examined all the officers who had checked the buses on 13.6.84, 4.2.85, 15.10.86, 22.8.87, 19.9.87 and 28.7.88. All of them only proved their checking reports and made no other statement. Name of the drivers who were driving the buses in question nor any of the passengers who were travelling with or without ticket on those buses on the above mentioned dates too were examined. Their statement too was not recorded by the officers checking the respective buses on any of these dates. Petitioner did not cross-examine any of the checking officers who were examined by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry. Petitioner too appeared in the witness box and proved his explanations which he had filed against the charge-sheets for denying the charges and refuting the factual allegations contained in the charge-sheets. The Enquiry Officer also made certain enquiries from the petitioner during the course of his oral examination from which he concluded that there was clear contradiction between petitioner's oral statement and the entries in the way bills. The enquiry officer did not record the statement of any other witness, including any of the drivers of the vehicles which were involved in various cases of carrying unauthorised passengers by petitioner, any other member of the checking party who checked the buses except for the officer who had made different reports against the petitioner, any of the passengers who were being unauthorised carried in the respective buses by the petitioner on those dates. The Enquiry Officer did not also make any reference of any service rule which the petitioner may have breached or violated so as to incur the liability of his removal from service. No service roll too was cited in the charge-sheet which petitioner had allegedly breached by carrying unauthorised passengers in the buses on all the occasions indicated in the four charge-sheets. No service roll too was cited in the charge-sheet which petitioner had allegedly breached by carrying unauthorised passengers in the buses on all the occasions indicated in the four charge-sheets. Though petitioner explained against this infirmity in the charge- sheets to the enquiry officer which were duly noted by him still the enquiry officer even during the course of the enquiry or during petitioner's cross-examination by him did not cite any service rule whatsoever which petitioner had allegedly breached in doing acts which were attributed to him in the charge-sheets served on him. 4. THE Enquiry Officer made three enquiry reports and submitted them to the appointing authority. THE appointing authority accordingly served three show-cause notices on the petitioner being dated 4.11.89 in respect of charge- sheet dated 17.8.1988, dated 16.12.89 in respect of charge-sheets dated 1.8.84 and 6.9.86 and finally dated 4.1.90 in respect of charge-sheet dated 5.12.1987. Petitioner filed his reply to the show-cause notices separately vide his letters addressed to the appointing authority copies of which have been filed as Annexures 2C (without date), 3C (bearing no date) but received in the office of the appointing authority on 6.1.90 and 4C (without bearing any date on it) but having been received in the office of the appointing authority on 3.2.1990. In the respective replies which the petitioner filed in respect of the three show-cause notices referred to above he again highlighted all the infirmities from which the charge-sheet suffered including vagueness of the charges due to non-mention of the service rules which he was found to have allegedly breached, non-supply of copies of statements of witnesses, if any, examined by the checking officers and copies of way-bills, and blank books and reports of the checking officers which formed the very basis of the charge-sheets and guilt of the petitioner. Petitioner also took exception against the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that conclusions in respect of the guilt of the petitioner drawn by the Enquiry Officer were unwarranted in absence of requisite proof by independent evidence viz. evidence of drivers and passengers of the respective buses which were involved in the carrying of unauthorised passengers by the petitioner while conducting those buses. 5. evidence of drivers and passengers of the respective buses which were involved in the carrying of unauthorised passengers by the petitioner while conducting those buses. 5. THE appointing authority after receipt of the replies from the petitioner passed the impugned removal order on 26.2.90 imposing on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service on the ground that the charges levelled on the petitioner were found proved against him and the explanation given by the petitioner to the show-cause notices served by him were of no help to him. His appeal to the opposite party No. 1 against the order of removal too was turned down by respondent No. 1 by order dated 10.7.90 without giving reasons. 6. NOW it is necessary to examine the points which have been raised by petitioner against order of removal passed by opposite parry No. 2 and the order of opposite party No. 1 dated 10.7.90 dismissing his appeal. No service rule has been cited by the opposite parties in the counter- affidavit which they have filed for opposing the writ petition, which may have been either flouted or breached by the petitioner in doing the acts attributed to him in the charge-sheets which were served on him ; even in the enquiry report and the order of punishment too opposite-parties have not referred to any service rule. In his oral submissions too, the learned counsel for the opposite- parties did not point out any service rule which may have been breached by petitioner so as to incur the liability of punishment of removal from service. No rule too has been indicated to show that any procedure for holding departmental disciplinary enquiry have been laid down. I, however, cannot believe that no service Rules have been framed for the employees of the corporation for laying down the terms and conditions of services of its employees including rules providing acts which amount to misconduct and punishments which may be imposed for those acts of misconduct as also rules laying down procedure for awarding punishment in cases of proved misconduct. In the counter-affidavit however, opposite-parties have referred to some Roadways Manual laying down the rule known as 'Pay and Board' which means that a passenger must pay fare before he boards the bus in question. In the counter-affidavit however, opposite-parties have referred to some Roadways Manual laying down the rule known as 'Pay and Board' which means that a passenger must pay fare before he boards the bus in question. They have also given reference of a division bench judgment of this court in Shri Krishna Sharma v. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9102 of 1980 decided on 26.2.88 wherein this court approved the rule of 'Pay and Board' and held that a Conductor if found guilty of the principle can validly be removed from service. No other provision of the Roadways Manual has however been pointed out. 7. ANY employee of Government-owned Corporation cannot be exposed to the mercy of the appointing authority in the matters of the terms and conditions of his service. Which particular act of his will amount to misconduct must be known to him which can be done only by making rules in that regard. The rules have also to provide the punishments with which the employee can be subjected in case he is found guilty of any acts of misconduct. Until rules identify the acts of misconduct and provide the punishment which is liable to be awarded for a particular act of misconduct, it will be impossible for the employee concerned to be sure as to which act of his will or will not be an act of misconduct. He will also be unable to know as to which misconduct will make him liable for which particular punishment. 8. IN a society which is governed by the rule of law, there has to be set norms for the functioning of the Governmental agencies, if not for each fabric of the society. Article 14 of the Constitution forbids arbitrariness. On the part of the Government and its constiuents in its day-to-day functioning. If there are no set rules providing norms on which the state has to function, there will be very great likelihood of State and its constituents and their officers acting in arbitrary manner giving rise to endless letlgation in law courts. Therefore, to check the menance of arbitrariness in State actions, it is constitutional obligation on the part of the State and its constituents to frame rules for providing the norms on which it shall itself function and expects others to function in matters concerning it. Therefore, to check the menance of arbitrariness in State actions, it is constitutional obligation on the part of the State and its constituents to frame rules for providing the norms on which it shall itself function and expects others to function in matters concerning it. If there are no service rules regulating service conditions of the service of its employees, the employees will be under a great disadvantage inasmuch as he will not be able to know as to whether the charge levelled on him, if proved, will amount to misconduct and what punishment he can be subject to for that act. Right of defence which is guaranteed to a Government servant under Article 311 of the Constitution and to other citizens under Articles 14 and 21 as also by the rules of natural Justice is a substantive right which has to be full and complete. Mere opportunity to admit or deny a particular factual allegation amounting to a charge of misconduct alone is not the defence which is envisaged by the Constitution and rules of the natural justice, it extends to confer a right on the concerned person to know as to which particular act is an act of misconduct under the service rules and also at to what punishment he is liable to incur if that act of misconduct is proved against him. If he is not told of the rules which he may have breached and which make him liable to be punished with a particular punishment, he will not be able to effectively defend himself despite the fact that he was provided with the best possible opportunity to refute and disprove the allegations which are levelled on him. 9. THE service Rules must have also to lay rules of procedure which may be applicable universally in disciplinary enquiries held against delinquent officers, procedure laid down in the rules have to be fair and reasonable which must conform to the minimum requirements of the rules of natural justice. 9. THE service Rules must have also to lay rules of procedure which may be applicable universally in disciplinary enquiries held against delinquent officers, procedure laid down in the rules have to be fair and reasonable which must conform to the minimum requirements of the rules of natural justice. When service rules are silent in the matter of procedure to be followed in departmental enquiry proceedings or when the rules, if any, do not conform to the minimum requirements of fairness in State actions, the universally approved rules of natural justice intervene so as to ensure guarantee of fairness in action and reasonable opportunity of defence to persons who are subjected to face charges of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings. Principles of natural justice are engrained by our constitution-makers in Art. 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees fairness and reasonableness in State actions. Any action by State or its instrumentality which is shrouded in unfairness becomes violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. THErefore, notwithstanding non-existence of statutory provision in service rules or for that matter, notwithstanding the service rules providing a procedure which does not conform to the rules of natural justice, no Government servant or an employee of any State instrumentality can be deprived of the protection of the rules of natural justice when he is called upon to defend himself against charges of misconduct having reflection on his chances of survival in the service as he has been given the guarantee of employment under Article 16 of the Constitution which also protects his tenure of service to enable him to stay in service till be attains the age of retirement or till he is lawfully removed from service on proved charges of misconduct in enquiry which is held in fair manner conforming to the principles of natural justice. 10. FOREMOST requirement of the rules of natural Justice is that when any person is called upon to answer charges of misconduct, he must be told what are those charges so as to enable him to know the charges which he has to answer, for this he must be given complete information including facts and the evidence on which the charges have been levelled on him. If complete statement of facts with evidence and material on which those facts are based are not disclosed to him and are not supplied to him, he will not be in a position to understand the exact nature of the charges he has to meet and, therefore, he will also not be in a position to effectively controvert those charges. If facts and materials including documents on which charges of misconduct are based are not disclosed and supplied to a Government servant, he is denied his right of defence. Allegations which were made against petitioner in the four charge- sheets which were served on him were mainly of carrying unauthorised passengers without issuing tickets to them. This charge was based on the reports made by checking officers who checked the respective buses which were being conducted by the petitioner. The facts stated in each of those reports were based on entries which were allegedly made firstly by the petitioner and also by those officers in the way-bills and the blank-books. If the reports of the checking officers, the blank books and way-bills are not there, there is nothing to support the charges which then will automatically fall through. Whether there existed such reports, way-bills and blank-books which could give credence to the factual allegations made against the petitioner constituting the charges levelled and found proved against the petitioner will be known to the petitioner if he is given to see and peruse those reports, way-bills and blank books ; if these documents are not made available to him, it is without any iota of doubt that the petitioner should have to believe that none of these documents are in existence and charges which are levelled on him are all false. He will be left to meet the allegations of misconduct without any material to verify its correctness. In case the enquiry into the allegations of misconduct is held after considerable gap of time as in this case, the employee will be absolutely defenceless and will not be able to either admit or deny those allegations of misconduct in absence of requisite documents. In case the enquiry into the allegations of misconduct is held after considerable gap of time as in this case, the employee will be absolutely defenceless and will not be able to either admit or deny those allegations of misconduct in absence of requisite documents. Without getting access to the checking reports, copies of way-bills and blank books, how could petitioner admit or deny the charge of misconduct which he was called upon to meet (answer) after lapse of two to six years of long time since after the alleged acts of misconduct were committed by him. It was mandatory duty of respondent Corporation to have made to the petitioner available all the six checking reports which were given against the petitioner by the officers checking the buses conducted by the petitioner to which the charges related, he was also legally entitled to peruse the entries in the way-bills and the blank books on which those reports were based. Without these petitioner could not get sufficient and reasonable opportunity of defending himself against those charges. The enquiry which was held by respondent Corporation against the petitioner was in fact not an enquiry known to the society governed by the rule of law. 11. THE opposite-parties, in my opinion, have illegally believed that the charges of misconduct were found proved against the petitioner. Except for the reports which were made by the checking officers, entries in the way-bills and the blank books, there was no other materials from which the charge of carrying passengers without tickets could be proved against the petitioner. Drivers who were driving the buses involved in the carrying of unauthorised passengers were the most important persons to verify the allegations of facts which were levelled against petitioner constituting the charge but none of the drivers was examined either by the checking officers or by the Enquiry Officer : why so ? No explanation has been given. Under the normal working rules of the Corporation which is in vague since the time of the U. P. Government Roadways, the driver of the bus is under duty to start the bus only after all the passengers have boarded the bus and tickets have been issued to them and the way-bill has been deposited by the Conductor with him. Under the normal working rules of the Corporation which is in vague since the time of the U. P. Government Roadways, the driver of the bus is under duty to start the bus only after all the passengers have boarded the bus and tickets have been issued to them and the way-bill has been deposited by the Conductor with him. THE charges which were levelled on the petitioner could also be equally applicable and could have been levelled on the concerned drivers, why it was not done is not explained, why their statement by way of explanation as to why they had started the buses without being sure that the passengers who had boarded their buses had duly been issued tickets and way-bill was deposited by petitioner with them was not recorded at any stage which is also not explained. Had the statement of the respective drivers been taken, they could have been able to verify as to whether petitioner had or not misbehaved, and did or did not co-operate in the checking of the buses, with the checking officers and whether the story which was put up by the petitioner that certain passengers had forcibly boarded the bus and despite demand for payment of fare were not paying the fare of their journey was or was not correct. Unfortunately none of the drivers whose statement was most crucial for establishing the charges against the petitioner were examined by opposite-parties so as to substantiate the allegations levelled on the petitioner specially those relating to the carrying of passengers In the buses without issuing tickets, not allowing the checking officer to have access to the way-bill and the blank book, issuing tickets to passengers during the course of checking by the checking officer and misbehaving with the checking officers in the course of checking. THE reports made against petitioner by the checking officers too were not based on the statement of either any of the passengers who were being carried by petitioner in unauthorised manner or of the drivers who were driving the buses involved which were six in number. Even the checking officer did not give any reason as to why statement of drivers and passengers had not been taken by him. 12. Even the checking officer did not give any reason as to why statement of drivers and passengers had not been taken by him. 12. IN absence of the statement of those persons, viz., drivers of buses and passengers, it is wholly improper to believe that petitioner was guilty of carrying unauthorised passengers in the buses as per the allegations made against him in the four charge-sheets. If a passenger boards the bus but refuses to pay the fare despite demand made for it by petitioner, could the petitioner still be held guilty of the charge until statement of driver and the passengers concerned or those travelling in the bus is taken for substantiating the falsehood of the defence version given by the petitioner. Similarly, every other charge, except for the tearing out of the way-bill and non-delivery of blank book to checking officer on his demand, could not be proved against the petitioner without statement of passengers and the drivers of the six buses in respect whereof the charges levelled on the petitioner related. The Enquiry Officer in his all the three enquiry reports based his conclusions of the guilt of petitioner mainly on the entries made by the petitioner in the way-bills and the reports of the checking officers made against the petitioner, neither during the enquiry which was conducted by the Enquiry Officer nor at any stage earlier to that, petitioner was neither supplied the copies of any of the six checking reports which were made against him nor he was allowed to peruse those reports both at the time of making his reply to the four charge- sheets served on him and at the time of the enquiry though he persistently damanded for supply of the copies both of the enquiry reports and the way-bills. Petitioner's defence version during the course of enquiry was disbelieved by the Enquiry Officer mainly on the ground that his statement or the stand taken in his defence was in contradiction with the entries made by him in the way-bills. How could petitioner remember the entries made by him In the way-bills after a lapse of considerable period of time extending between two years to six years. How could petitioner remember the entries made by him In the way-bills after a lapse of considerable period of time extending between two years to six years. It was but necessary for the Enquiry Officer to have allowed the perusal of the checking reports and way-bills to the petitioner so as to enable him to know as to whether the reports did or did not support the charges and whether what was written in the report was correct or incorrect : similarly by perusing the way-bills, he could have been able to know that the entries made in the way-bills were by him and by its perusal, he could have been in better position to take a proper stand to avoid contradiction between his stand and the entries found recorded in the way-bills. Why copies of the way-bills and checking reports were not supplied to petitioner and in any case were not made available for petitioner's perusal has not been explained by the Enquiry Officer in either of his enquiry reports, by the appointing authority in his order of punishment, by the appellate authority in his order rejecting petitioner's appeal, in the counter-affidavit of opposite-parties, which they filed in this court to oppose petitioner's prayer in the writ petition and also by the learned counsel for opposite-parties during the course of his oral submission. This was the position though at every stage, before filing his reply to the charge-sheets and at the time of enquiry, the petitioner had demanded for it. He pressed this infirmity in the enquiry proceedings in each of his replies which he filed to the three show-cause notices as also in the appeal which he filed against the order of punishment and also in the writ petition but no notice of his plea in this respect was taken by opposite-parties at any of the above-named stages. 13. IN the light of the discussion made above, my conclusions (of facts and the law Involved) in this case are as follows : (a) By not supplying to the petitioner copies of the checking reports and refusing to allow him the perusal of the way-bills and blank books both at the time of filing of explanation to the charge-sheets and during the course of enquiry into those charges, the respondents denied a reasonable opportunity of defence to the petitioner. (b) An employee of an instrumentality of the State Government, like a Government servant, too is entitled to the protection of his service tenure and his services can be dispensed with only for breach and violation of service rules in a manner provided by rules which must conform to the principle of natural justice and reasonableness which is guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. (c) Charges of misconduct levelled on the petitioner which he was called upon to meet and defend and on which he has been removed from his service by the respondents suffered from vagueness inasmuch as those charges did not indicate as to whether or not the petitioner was guilty of violation of any service rule relating to (Governing) conduct of service of the employees of the respondent Corporation. (d) Enquiry held against the petitioner and the resultant order of removal made against him is vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice due to the reason given in (a) above. (e) No charge of carrying unauthorised passengers in the bus of the Corporation can be found proved against a Conductor unless the charge is supported/corroborated by the statement of the driver of that bus and also of the passengers travelling in the bus or of any other independent agency apart from the officer checking the bus and reporting against the Conductor. (f) When rules provide remedy of appeal against an order of punishment awarded to an employee, the officer or the authority dealing with the appeal preferred by the delinquent officer/employee is under mandatory duty to deal with the points raised by the delinquent in his representation or the memo of appeal, he cannot express his conclusion by saying that there is no force in the appeal until he gives his reasons for rejecting the points raised. (g) Provision of appeal is meant to ensure that an officer or authority higher in position than the appointing authority must also apply his mind to ensure that the appealing employee has not been given by the appointing authority a raw deal while awarding punishment to him; it, therefore, follows that the provision of appeal too is the part of the protection which is given to a Government servant by Article 311(2) of the Constitution and to the employees of Instrumentalities of the State by the Service Rules and the Rules of natural justice as also by the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution ; it, therefore, further follows that if the appellate authority fails to discharge his duty Indicated hereinabove, the order of punishment itself gets vitiated for the breach of the principles of natural justice. (h) In the present case, the respondent No. 1 while dismissing petitioner's appeal which he had filed against the order of his removal from service did not at all deal with any of the points raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal and in a cursory manner, dismissed petitioner's appeal ; this also caused serious prejudice to the petitioner in his right of reasonable opportunity of defence against the charges on which he was removed from his service with the result the order of removal of the petitioner from his service is vitiated on this ground too. 14. IN the light of the discussions made above, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order of petitioner's removal from the service of the Corporation by order dated 26.2.90 passed by opposite-party No. 2 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and appellate authority's order dated 10.7.90 (Annexure 7, to the writ petition) are quashed. Respondents shall allow the petitioner to continue in service of the Corporation as if the order of his removal from Corporation's service had not been passed : they shall accordingly pay to the petitioner all his service dues which would have been payable to him had the impugned order of his removal from Corporation's service not been passed and petitioner would have continued in service provided petitioner submits before his appointing authority, opposite-party No. 2, proof of his unemployment during the entire period subsequent to the passing of the removal order. It will, however, be open to the respondents to hold fresh enquiry, if they so like, strictly in accordance with law and on the lines already indicated in this judgment. Petitioner shall also be entitled to get costs of the case from the opposite parties which is quantified at rupees five thousand. Writ petition is allowed with costs.