R. K. GULATI, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated January 24, 1994 by which the petitioner was terminated and dismissed from service. ( 2 ) AT the relevant time the petitioner was working as a Lab Attendant in the Department of moalijat, A. K. Tibbiya College, Atigarh Muslim University, Aligarh. On October 19, 1993 the petitioner was suspended from service. It is the case of the respondents that a charge-sheet dated january 1, 1994 was sought to be served on petitioner initially through a peon and subsequently, by registered post but as the service was refused by the petitioner, a tele- gram was sent to him and a notice was also got published on January 21, 1994 in Urdu daily newspaper "quaumi awaj" From Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit which allegedly contains a copy of the charge-sheet dated January 1, 1994 it would be evident that the petitioner was accused of four charges including that he was arrested in a criminal offence under Sections 325/147/323/324 IPC and was sent to jail on June 15, 1992 under the orders of the Chief Ju- dicial Magistrate. The accusation was that the petitioner did not inform the respondent-Department with regard to his involvement in the criminal case, arrest and having been sent to jail by the Court. Another charge was that the petitioner proceeded on leave on a false pretext of illness on the dates he was in jail and thereby deceived the respondent- department and the appointing authority. The charges of carelessness, negligence in duties and remaining absent without prior sanction of leave were also levied, of which it was stated that the petitioner had been warned in the past. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the case of the respondents no reply to the charges was submitted nor the petitioner participated in the inquiry held against him. On the contrary, the petitioner has averred in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that immediately upon information (receipt of the telegram and the notice published in Quaumi Awaj submitted a memo dated January 22, 1994 stating therein that the charges against the petitioner were incorrect which he denied and demanded that he may be served with a copy of the charges. It is further averred that the petitioner also annexed a copy of the order dated November 11, 1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh and a copy of the memo dated December 8, 1993 issued by the Superintendent, District Jail, aligarh, showing that the petitioner had never been sent to jail on June 14, 15, 16, 1992 as alleged against him. In the counter affidavit in reply to paragraph 6 of the writ petition all that has been stated, is that a warrant dated June 15, 1992 was issued against the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner was involved in a case under Sections 147/323/324/325 of the Indian penal Code. There is no specific denial of the assertions contained in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. Be that as it may, the impugned order of dismissal proceeded on the allegations that no reply to the charges was submitted nor the petitioner participated in the enquiry and, therefore, it was assumed that the petitioner had nothing to say in the matter. The order of dismissal was recorded in the following manner : "mr. Mohd. Shahid was sent the charges and other evidence under registered post, but he got it returned, then notice through telegram dated January 18, 1994 was given requiring him to take documents and file written reply by January 24, 1994 till 12 noon and further notice was published in Quaumi Awaz dated January 21, 1994. This was sufficient service and Mr. Mohd. Shahid did not file any written reply, thus I propose to proceed in the matter on assumption that mr. Mohd. Shahid has nothing to say in this matter. I have thoroughly considered the matter and gone through the documents against and find that charges are proved and Mr. Mohd. Shahid is guilty of the charges levelled against him. Mr. Mohd. Shahids services as Lab. Attendant in the Dept. of Moalijat, A. K. Tibbiya College, a. M. U. , Aligarh is terminated with immediate effect and is hereby dismissed from service. " ( 4 ) IT may be observed that the aforesaid order was made by the Chairman, Department of moalijat, A. K. Tibbiya College, A. M. U. , Aligarh who is the appointing authority of the petitioner and the inquiry was also held by the said authority. Challenging the order of dismissal as already observed, this writ petition was preferred. " ( 4 ) IT may be observed that the aforesaid order was made by the Chairman, Department of moalijat, A. K. Tibbiya College, A. M. U. , Aligarh who is the appointing authority of the petitioner and the inquiry was also held by the said authority. Challenging the order of dismissal as already observed, this writ petition was preferred. ( 5 ) THE counter affidavit which was filed today was taken on record. ( 6 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner was that assuming the petitioner had not filed any reply to the charge-sheet and had abstained from participating in the enquiry, still the impugned order was not liable to be sustained, inasmuch as even in an ex-parte inquiry it was obligatory on the disciplinary authority to hold the enquiry ex-parte which was not done in the instant case. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme court in State of U. P. and Ors. v. T. P. Lal Srivastava. (1997-I-LLJ-831 ). ( 7 ) IT is settled that where the delinquent employee refuses to participate in the inquiry, he cannot turn around and complain that the dismissal was against the principles of natural justice. The conduct of an employee in deliberately not appearing and explaining the charges; against him for reasons whatsoever must be deprecated. However, withdrawal from enquiry by the delinquent employee does not give the freedom or absolve the Inquiry Officer to hold an ex-parte inquiry according to law. To; put it differently, it does not mean that a finding against the delinquent can be given by the Enquiry Officer without further investigation. It is still necessary for the Inquiry officer to record the evidence in support of the charges although the recording of such evidence, oral or documentary wiil be in absence of the concerned employee. It is of utmost necessity that the disciplinary authority examines the case with great care before any decision is taken about the guilt of the person. If this is not done, the enquiry will not be valid. The person proceeded against has a right at different stages of the proceedings and if he defaulted at one stage then it will not take away his right to defend himself altogether at a different stage. If this is not done, the enquiry will not be valid. The person proceeded against has a right at different stages of the proceedings and if he defaulted at one stage then it will not take away his right to defend himself altogether at a different stage. To put it in short, mere absence of the employee or his refusal to participate may not be regarded as proof of the charges. The requirement of proof will depend upon the facts of each case. In the absence of any evidence neither the Enquiry Officer can arrive at any conclusion nor make a report containing the assessment of evidence. ( 8 ) IN the case of T. P. Lal Srivastava (supra) relied upon by the petitioner the Supreme Court has held as under: at p. 832 ". . . . . Since the respondent had avoided to submit the reply, he has foregone his right to submit his reply. Nonetheless, the appellants are not absolved of the duty to hold an ex-parte inquiry to find out whether or not the charge has been proved. In the event if the Enquiry Officer finds that the charge is proved, he would submit his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The disciplinary authority should communicate the copy of the enquiry report to the respondent and seek an explanation for the proposed action thereon. If the respondent submits any explanation, the same may be taken into consideration and appropriate order may be passed according to law. Until then, the respondent must be deemed to be under sus-pension. " ( 9 ) THE ratio decidendi of the above decision is clearly attracted and governs the fate of this case. Sri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute that no inquiry was held as the petitioner had not submitted any reply to the charges, nor he appeared before the disciplinary authority to answer the charges. The relevant part of the impugned order which has been extracted above, also indicates that after recording the finding of sufficiency of service about the charge-sheet and the fact that the petitioner did not appear to reply the charges or had filed any reply, straightaway the order of dismissal was made without forwarding a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner and demanding an explanation for the proposed action thereon. The petitioner was, therefore, clearly deprived of an opportunity to submit his explanation if any. In the absence of that exercise, in my opinion, the disciplinary authority could not have passed the impugned order legally and it cannot, therefore, be sustained which is set aside with the direction to the disciplinary authority that it may hold the ex-parte inquiry afresh either by himself or by appointing an Inquiry Officer, bearing in mind the observations made in this order and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of T. P. Lal (supra ). After the inquiry report is available, the disciplinary authority will communicate a copy of the same to the petitioner asking for his explanation for the proposed action thereon, if any, and if the petitioner submits any explanation, the same may be taken into consideration and thereafter appropriate orders may be passed thereon in accordance with law. It is made clear that until then the petitioner will remain under suspension. ( 10 ) SUBJECT to the above the writ petition succeeds in part. There shall be no order as to costs. .