R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16. 8. 75 whereby the petitioner was suspended from the post of Group 2 of Subordinate agriculture Services, the order dated 17. 3. 82 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and the order dated 23. 3. 91 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that it was on 12. 10. 57 that the petitioner was appointed as Group 3 employee in Subordinate Agriculture Services U. P. and his services were confirmed on 1. 1. 1974. It was on 2. 12. 1974 that the petitioner was promoted to a Group 2 post in the said department. It was on 16. 8. 75 that the petitioner was placed under suspension, thereafter, on 8. 10. 76, a charge-sheet was served upon him under the signature of the Project officer, Gonda, of which the petitioner submitted his reply, but subsequently on 14. 1. 1977 aforesaid charge-sheet was cancelled by respondent No. 2. A fresh charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 13. 4. 1977 and respondent No. 3 was appointed as Inquiry Officer. On receipt of the charge-sheet, petitioner applied to supply him certain documents, as according to him, without said documents it was not possible to file effective reply of the charge-sheet. Thereafter on 28. 8. 78, a supplementary charge-sheet was also served upon the petitioner. Even after receipt of the supplementary charge-sheet, the petitioner applied to the Inquiry Officer, to supply certain documents, which were required for preparing reply/objection of the charge-sheet. Another application to the same effect was filed on 15. 11. 78; but even then the requisite documents were not supplied to the petitioner. However, it was on 12. 5. 1980, that petitioner has filed his explanation. After the explanation was filed by the petitioner, It Is stated, that he was not apprised of any date or the place for conducting the enquiry by the Inquiry Officer, nor he was afforded opportunity to produce his evidence, or to cross-examine the witnesses. If any, examined against him by the department. The Inquiry Officer submitted his ex parte report on 24. 11. 1981. If any, examined against him by the department. The Inquiry Officer submitted his ex parte report on 24. 11. 1981. According to the aforesaid report, out of 45 charges only three charges were stated to have been proved against the petitioner. In the opinion of the Inquiry Officer, on the basts of the charges, which were proved against the petitioner, no major penalty could be awarded to the petitioner, he, therefore, recommended to the punishing authority to award minor punishment to him. On receipt of the enquiry report, the punishing authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on certain charges and on the basis of the charges, which were stated to have been proved against the petitioner, dismissed the petitioner from service on 17. 3. 1982. ( 3 ) PETITIONER challenging the validity of the order of dismissal dated 17. 3. 1982, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 30. 7. 1982 and while the appeal filed by the petitioner was pending disposal before the appellate authority, petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. After the counter and rejoinder-affidavits were exchanged, this Court heard the matter finally and allowed the writ petition by its judgment and order dated 8. 5. 1991. The operative portion of the Judgment is quoted below : "the writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated March 17, 1982 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. It will be open to the opposite parties to hold the inquiry afresh according to law from the stage of the submission of the report by the inquiry Officer after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner In respect of the same in the light of the above observations. Since the matter has become very old, the inquiry shall be completed and final orders passed within a period of three months provided the petitioner co-operates. The opposite parties will pass appropriate orders according to law in the matter of reinstatement of the petitioner and payment of pay and allowances for the period of suspension etc. There will be no order as to costs. " ( 4 ) VALIDITY of the judgment and order passed by this Court referred to above was challenged in honble Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, petitioner was informed by letter dated 5. 7. There will be no order as to costs. " ( 4 ) VALIDITY of the judgment and order passed by this Court referred to above was challenged in honble Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, petitioner was informed by letter dated 5. 7. 91, that the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the appellate authority. Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents in the Supreme Court was allowed on 15. 11. 93 and the case was remanded to this Court for deciding the writ petition on merits as earlier writ petition was allowed on the ground that show cause notice along with the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. Said ground was found untenable in view of the decision of Honble Supreme Court in case of managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakaran, 1993 Vol. 4 SCC 727. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also perused the record. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner, after he has submitted his reply, was not afforded opportunity to participate in the enquiry, he was not Informed about the progress of the said enquiry by the Inquiry Officer, he was not afforded opportunity to produce evidence or to cross-examine the witnesses examined against him," he was also not supplied relevant documents, therefore, he was deprived of an opportunity to defend himself in the said proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order of dismissal and also the order passed in appeal were liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that the petitioner was afforded opportunity to inspect the documents, therefore, he cannot complain of not providing him opportunity to defend himself. It was also urged that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and thereafter, the impugned order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner, on the basis of the charges, which were found proved, therefore, no interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is called for. ( 8 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. ( 9 ) IN the present case, provisions of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Regulations, 1930 are applicable. ( 8 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. ( 9 ) IN the present case, provisions of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Regulations, 1930 are applicable. Rule 55a of the said Regulations provides that no order of dismissal, removal or reduction In rank shall be passed against a person who is a member of civil services or holds civil posts under the State, unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. He shall be required within a reasonable time to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the authority concerned so directs, an oral inquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as are not admitted. At that inquiry such oral evidence will be heard as the inquiry Officer considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may for sufficient reason to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the ground thereof. The officer conducting the inquiry may also separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged government servant. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer, who was other than the punishing authority. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner in violation of the aforesaid rule and without following the procedure prescribed for conducting the enquiry. In paragraph Nos. 20 to 24 of the writ petition, it has been stated as under: 20. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner in violation of the aforesaid rule and without following the procedure prescribed for conducting the enquiry. In paragraph Nos. 20 to 24 of the writ petition, it has been stated as under: 20. That neither of the 2 charge-sheets mentioned any evidence documentary or otherwise relied upon by the prosecution nor any copies of the documents were supplied to the petitioner in spite of the fact that the petitioner gave applications on 26. 4. 77, 19. 5. 78 and 15. 11. 78 to the Inquiry officer for inspection of certain documents, a true copy of the application dated 26. 4. 77 is filed as Annexure-5 to this writ petition which was duly acknowledged by hand in the office of the o. P. No. 3 and the latter two were sent by registered post but no reply was given to the said applications nor the petitioner was allowed inspection of record. 21. That except of the service of the aforesaid two charge-sheets on the petitioner to which he replied, though he was not allowed opportunity to inspect the records, no inquiry for namesake was ever made. The petitioner was never apprised of the date, time or place of the so-called inquiry oral or otherwise. 22. That no witnesses were examined at any time nor the petitioner was apprised of any proceedings in the nature of inquiry relating to the said two charge-sheets. 23. That the petitioner was never asked to produce his defence evidence oral or documentary to meet the charges levelled against him. 24. That after the said 2 charge-sheets had been served upon the petitioner and the petitioner had replied to the said two charge-sheets nothing further happened in the knowledge of the petitioner. It was all of a sudden that the petitioner was served with an order dated 17. 3. 82 passed by O. P. No. 2 dismissing the petitioner from service. A true copy of the said order is filed as Annexure-6 to this petition. ( 11 ) IN reply to the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit by the respondents, only it has been stated as under : 22. That the contents of para 20 of the writ petition are denied. Petitioner was allowed inspection of documents to be relied upon against him. ( 11 ) IN reply to the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit by the respondents, only it has been stated as under : 22. That the contents of para 20 of the writ petition are denied. Petitioner was allowed inspection of documents to be relied upon against him. A proof of the same is being annexed herewith as Annexure-C1 to this counter-affldavit. 23. That the contents of paras 21 to 23 are denied. It may be submitted that the petitioner was required to give the name and address of the possessor to be cross examined in his defence which he did not furnish. Moreover petitioner did not press for oral enquiry as the documents proof were sufficient against the petitioner. 24. That the contents of para 24 of the writ petition are denied as a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer. Records were examined in view of the reply of the petitioner. The enquiry report was prepared and submitted to the punishing authority and final orders were passed. ( 12 ) THE facts stated in the counter-affidavit have been controverted by the petitioner in the rejoinder-affidavit. The facts stated in paragraph Nos. 20 to 24 of the writ petition, have not been specifically controverted and denied in the counter-affidavit. Said facts, therefore, shall be deemed to have been admitted. ( 13 ) FROM a reading of the pleadings of the parties in the present case, it is evident that although the petitioner was supplied copy of the charge-sheet and he also submitted his reply, but thereafter he was kept in complete dark by the Inquiry Officer. There is nothing on record to show that the Inquiry Officer informed the petitioner about the date, time and place for conducting the enquiry. The petitioner was not afforded opportunity to produce evidence or to cross-examine the witnesses, who were examined by the department against him. The petitioner was also not supplied necessary documents, which were required for submitting effective reply of the charge-sheet and the punishing authority also did not afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after disagreeing with findings and recommendations of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was also not supplied necessary documents, which were required for submitting effective reply of the charge-sheet and the punishing authority also did not afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after disagreeing with findings and recommendations of the Inquiry Officer. In view of the said facts, there is no difficulty in arriving at conclusion that the enquiry was conducted and order of dismissal was passed in utter disregard of the provision of Rule 51 of the Rules referred to above, therefore, the Impugned orders are liable to be quashed. A reference in this regard is made to the decisions in Rajendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. Agro, 1993 SCC 656 (DB), avtar v. State of U. P. , 1989 LCD 199 (DB ). Satya Prakash v. Town Area Committee. 1994 SCD 262, Ram Bhul Sharma v. State of U. P. , 1997 LCD 1213. Narain Misra v. State of Orissa, 1969 slr 657, Ram Krishna Bansal v. State of U. P. , 1990 LCD 362, Kunj Behari Misra, AIR 1998 sc 2713 . The said decisions are applicable to the facts of the present case and fully support the case of the petitioner. ( 14 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussions the present petition is liable to be allowed. ( 15 ) WRIT Petition is allowed with costs. Order of dismissal dated 17. 3. 1982 and order dated 23. 3. 1991 as well as disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner after submission of his explanation before the Inquiry Officer, are hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to conduct disciplinary proceedings afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. It is further directed that respondents shall pay amount of subsistence allowance to the petitioner from the date the petitioner was placed under suspension till he retired from service on 27. 7. 1995, within two months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is communicated to the competent authority. .