JUDGMENT (1.) SHOBHA Dikshit J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-10-1985 passed by U. P. Public Services Tribunal, partly allowing the Claim Petition preferred by the petitioner. The learned Tribunal while affirming the part of the order dismissing the petitioner from service dated 21-12-1981 quashed the part of the order by which recovery from the petitioner was directed. The said judgment has been challenged primarily on the ground that the entire departmental enquiry which was held against the petitioner was illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. (2.) PETITIONER was appointed as Assistant Development Officer (Agriculture) vide orders dated 7-12-1962 and he joined as such on 1-1-1970 in Project Office, Aligarh. Thereafter he was posted at several places. While he was posted as Assistant Development Officer, Agriculture in block Chharra as Agriculture Inspector (Supply) in Buffer Godown, Aligarh, an audit for the period April, 1973 to July, 1974 of the buffer godown was carried out, whereupon serious financial irregularities were reported by the said audit team. The Director (Agriculture) after receiving the audit report ordered the Project Officer, Aligarh to make enquiry into the matter and hold departmental proceedings against all the persons who have been held responsible for the alleged irregularities. This included the petitioner and three other persons. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 5-6-1975 by the Project Officer. Departmental proceedings were initiate and a charge-sheet dated 3-9-1975 was served upon the petitioner containing six charges relating to various irregularities like non-tally of entries with the record with the physical verification of jute bags, correction in the receipts but corresponding entries in the register were not corrected, loss of fertiliser in transit, excess adjustment in the name of sweeping allowance etc. In the charge-sheet, the evidence mentioned in support of the charges was the report of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Development Officer. However, a copy of the said preliminary enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. In fact, no other document was supplied to the petitioner which was mentioned in the evidence. PETITIONER made a request to furnish the copy or permit him to inspect the record. The copies were however not made available but the petitioner was permitted to inspect the records. In fact, no other document was supplied to the petitioner which was mentioned in the evidence. PETITIONER made a request to furnish the copy or permit him to inspect the record. The copies were however not made available but the petitioner was permitted to inspect the records. According to the petitioner, he was very much handicapped in furnishing a reply but left with no option, he submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 8-10-1975. In the reply, petitioner had submitted that there could be an error in some entries' but on facts and physical verification, there could be no error found in the manner he had performed his duties. It was further submitted that if at all the enquiry is to be conducted, it should be conducted against all the persons who have been found responsible by the audit party. While the enquiry was so pending, a supplementary charge-sheet was also issued to the petitioner after more than two years on 28-10-1976 and the said charges also related to misappropriation and embezzlement with regard to stocks and money. PETITIONER submitted a reply to this also. After submitting the reply, the petitioner did not receive any intimation from the Enquiry Officer as to the date fixed for leading evidence or cross- examining the witnesses. It has been alleged that the matter remains pending and the petitioner after a lapse of several years received the impugned order dated 21-12-1981 dismissing him from service. It was provided in the said order that Rs. 87,072.00. shall be recovered from the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a claim petition inter-alia on the ground that the enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice since have been violated, therefore, the whole enquiry is vitiated and the order of dismissal is liable to be quashed. This claim petition was con tested by the opposite parties, by filing a written statement wherein it was admitted that the copy of the preliminary enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner as also no other evidence or statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry were furnished to the petitioner. However, he was permitted to inspect the record which he did and hence no prejudice has been caused to him. However, he was permitted to inspect the record which he did and hence no prejudice has been caused to him. It was further stated that the petitioner was informed that in case, he desires to produce any evidence or oral hearing then he should inform the department accordingly but since petitioner chose neither to make oral submissions nor to tender any evidence, therefore, such opportunity was not provided to the petitioner and there is nothing illegal in the same. The Enquiry Officer had found petitioner guilty of charge Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 and also supplementary charge Nos. 1 and 2. Since the petitioner never had any grievance against the Enquiry Officer and did not request for his change, therefore, no grievance on this count can be raised at this stage. On such pleadings, the learned Tribunal held that the order passed by the punishing authority is just, proper and valid as the same is based on the correct appreciation of the documentary evidence on record by the Enquiry Officer. Learned Tribunal held that since the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on technical grounds, therefore, it is clear that he has not denied that he is guilty. Since he did not avail the option by requesting for oral hearing, hence he cannot legitimately complain about the same and in view of the Tribunal, such documentary evidence is the best evidence, therefore, non- production of witnesses to prove the charges and the cross- examination is hardly of any consequence. It was further observed that in case any other supervisory staff was held responsible after enquiry then thee amount of recovery fixed against the petitioner be proportionately reduced. For the said reasons, the order to the extent, it provided for recovery from the petitioner was quashed by the impugned judgment. (3.) THIS impugned judgment has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that admittedly, the preliminary enquiry was cited as evidence against the charges contained in the charge-sheet but the copy thereof was not supplied to the petitioner, hence petitioner was denied a requisite opportunity to file an effective reply in his defence. (3.) THIS impugned judgment has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that admittedly, the preliminary enquiry was cited as evidence against the charges contained in the charge-sheet but the copy thereof was not supplied to the petitioner, hence petitioner was denied a requisite opportunity to file an effective reply in his defence. The second ground of challenge is that the enquiry is not fair and reasonable as no principles of natural justice have been followed as neither any evidence was led in support of the changes by the department for petitioner as given any opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a strenuous effort by referring to the various charges and the reply furnished by him to make the point that the nature of the charges was such that the same could not be proved or disproved until and unless oral evidence was led by both the parties. He submitted that the discrepancy in the number of jute bages was found simply because the physical verification of the bags was not carried out. Similarly the shortage in the urea was recorded but it was not considered as to whether the trucks which carried the urea were accompanied by the staff members or not, there fore, there was every possibility of theft being committed during the transportation of the same. Similarly, all such factor were not considered which could in all probability create a short fall in the huge quantity of urea and manure etc. stored in ill kept godowns. There could be normal wastage which is called sweeping allowance of certain percentage. Similarly, some bags get damages during transit resulting into loss/short fall in the total quantity of urea. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that these were matters which could not be proved or disproved merely on the basis of the records maintained in the office but the same required factual physical verification as also the oral evidence of all the persons who were dealing with the same at different stages. Since this opportunity was admittedly not provided to the petitioner and his written statement was not properly appreciated by the Enquiry Officer, hence he has been wrongly found guilty of the charges. He further submitted that in these circumstances, the whole enquiry stands vitiated. Since this opportunity was admittedly not provided to the petitioner and his written statement was not properly appreciated by the Enquiry Officer, hence he has been wrongly found guilty of the charges. He further submitted that in these circumstances, the whole enquiry stands vitiated. Denial of opportunity to cross-examine and proving the charges independently by leading evidence is the obligation of the Enquiry Officer and once the Enquiry Officer fails to discharge his obligation, the whole enquiry stands vitiated and is liable to be quashed. (4.) HIS next ground of challenge is that some extraneous material has been considered by the punishing authority as it has placed reliance on a letter dated 9-12-1975 to prove charge No. 4 whereas this letter was cited as evidence in the chargesheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in accepting the contention of the opposite parties in reply to the aforesaid charge that this letter was referred only to verify the facts staled by the petitioner himself in the reply submitted by him to the chargesheet. The learned Tribunal had discussed this aspect of the mailer in the following manner: "it is true that this letter has not been cited as evidence against charge No. 4 whereas it has been referred to in the impugned order while proving charge No. 4. It is to be noted that in reply the petitioner has himself alleged that 16 bags of fertilizer were badly rotten and the verifying officer had said that these rotten bags be thrown into compost pits. " (5.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken a wholly perverse and erroneous view since the whole matter turned on as to what were the reasons given by the verifying officer to contradict the reply given by the petitioner, therefore, a copy of this document ought to have been furnished to the petitioner to meet his argument and if any, then atleast the verifying officer should have been produced to testify and giving the petitioner opportunity to cross- examine him. While placing reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned counsel submitted that use of this extraneous material itself is sufficient to vitiate the whole of the departmental enquiry. While placing reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned counsel submitted that use of this extraneous material itself is sufficient to vitiate the whole of the departmental enquiry. (6.) IT was next contended that once it was admitted by the opposite parties before the learned Tribunal that the enquiry was completed merely on the basis of the records and no date was fixed or intimated to the petitioner during the enquiry and the copy of the preliminary report which was cited as evidence was not provided to the petitioner and petitioner alone was found guilty without holding of enquiry against three persons who were also found responsible for the alleged irregularity, the learned Tribunal ought to have held the enquiry illegal, in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, it ought to have quashed the order of dismissal based on such an enquiry. IT was submitted by the learned counsel that a delinquent official must not oraly be given an opportunity but such must be a reasonable opportunity which was admittedly not provided to the petitioner. Placing reliance on Rule 55 of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, be submitted that it is not relevant whether the charged officer expressed a desire for oral enquiry or not but the authority concerned is obliged to hold an oral enquiry in respect of such of the allegations as are not admitted and in that enquiry, such oral evidence shall be led as the Enquiry Officer considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses to give evidence in person and to have such wit nesses called as he may wish provided that the officer conducting the enquiry may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call witness. Since the Enquiry Officer failed in his obligations to hold the oral enquiry which was necessary to prove the charges, may be it was held ex parte, the whole enquiry stands vitiated and the order of dismissal alongwith the order directing recovery of the alleged financial loss caused to the State Government is liable to be set aside. Since the Enquiry Officer failed in his obligations to hold the oral enquiry which was necessary to prove the charges, may be it was held ex parte, the whole enquiry stands vitiated and the order of dismissal alongwith the order directing recovery of the alleged financial loss caused to the State Government is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. and others v. T. P. Lal Srivastava, 1996 (10) SCC 702 , State Bank of India and others v. G. C. Agarwal and others 1993 (1) SCC 13 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Uma Shanker Yadav v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lucknow, 1993 (XI) LCD 495. Lastly, it was contended that the punishing authority had committed grave error in passing a conditional punishment order regarding recovery. The direction that if the supervisory staff was found responsible of charges which are of financial nature then exemption would be granted to the petitioner for the amount these officers are held responsible. The learned Tribunal though held this part of the order illegal and quashed the same on the ground that it is based on pending enquiry proceedings but it erroneously maintained the other part of the order, that is, dismissal of the petitioner from service when the enquiry proceedings with regard to three other persons were not found proved. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the punishment order could not have been divided/separated into two parts and hold one part as valid and another part as illegal though for the same reasons. It was a composite order and it could not have been bifurcated in the manner and for the reasons it has been done by the learned Tribunal. (7.) LEARNED Standing Counsel repelled the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in the impugned judgment, the findings are of facts and therefore, the same call for no interference. (8.) I have considered the arguments of both the parties. It is an admitted fact that oral enquiry was not held. Enquiry Officer did not hold any sittings and not evidence was led before him to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. (8.) I have considered the arguments of both the parties. It is an admitted fact that oral enquiry was not held. Enquiry Officer did not hold any sittings and not evidence was led before him to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. Obviously, the question of any opportunity to cross- examine all the witnesses does not arise in such a situation. Since the punishment awarded to the petitioner is a major penalty, therefore the compliance of Rule 55 of the aforesaid rules was mandatory. The purpose of this rule is to give Government servant an opportunity to exonerate himself from the charges and if the opportunity has to be reasonable one, then he should necessarily be allowed to show that the evidence against him is not worthy of credence or consideration and this can only be shown by him provided he is given a chance to cross-examine the witnesses called against him and to examine himself or any other witness in support of his defence. All this is implicit in the language of the rule. Principles of natural justice are in built in such rules and the settled legal position is that whether the charged officer requests for oral enquiry or not, it is the obligation of the Enquiry Officer to pro vide such an opportunity failing which the whole of the enquiry stands vitiated. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, where no such opportunity was provided, the extraneous material was used against the petitioner. Even the report of the preliminary enquiry was not furnished to the petitioner. List of witnesses was not provided to him ; and his conduct alone was enquired into while audit report indicted four persons. In these circumstances, there is no doubt that the departmental enquiry and the punishment based thereupon suffers from serious legal infirmities and perversities and the same are liable to be quashed. (9.) I, therefore, allow the writ petition and set aside the judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 11-10- 1985 as also the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service dated 21-12-1981 and hereby direct the respondents to hold the enquiry afresh against the petitioner from the stage of providing copies of the relevant documents to enable him to file a fresh reply to the charges and thereafter to hold the enquiry in accordance with law. It is further provided that before passing the final order of punishment, the out come of the enquiry, if any, concluded against other persons shall also be taken into consideration. Since the charges are of serious nature and regarding the financial irregularities, therefore, the petitioner shall be deemed to continue under suspension. Since this is an old case, the opposite parties are directed to complete the enquiry expeditiously and pass final orders on the enquiry so conducted without unnecessary delay. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner shall be entitled to subsistence allowance in accordance with service rules. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.