M. KATJU, D. R. CHAUDHARY, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated June 8, 1999 Annexure 27 to the writ petition by which his service had been terminated and recovery has been ordered against him. The petitioner was an employee of the U. P. Co-operative Federation having been appointed on December 21, 1976 as Assistant accountant and thereafter he was promoted in june 1981 as Superintendent. In 1989 he was posted as District Manager of the Federation at etah when he was suspended but the suspension order was stayed by the High Court on May 7, 1990 as stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. Thereafter an enquiry was held and his service was terminated. Hence this petition. ( 2 ) SEVERAL grounds have been taken by the petitioner in this petition but it is not necessary for us to go into all of them as we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed on one ground alone. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in state of U. P. v. Shatrughan Lal, (1998-II-LLJ-799) (SC) in which it has been held that the relevant documents which are referred to in the charge-sheet and which are relied on by the enquiry officer have to be supplied to the charge-sheeted employee. In paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 69 of the writ petition it has been contended that copies of the documents referred to in the charge- sheet were not supplied to the petitioner despite his requests. A perusal of the charge-sheet, copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition, shows that a large number of documents have been referred to therein. Hence in view of the aforesaid decision of the supreme Court copies of these documents should have been supplied to the petitioner, but it appears that despite his repeated requests they were not supplied to him. ( 4 ) THE reply to the relevant paragraphs in the writ petition alleging that the relevant documents referred to in the charge- sheet were not supplied to him is contained in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, but this paragraph does not dispute the allegation that the copies of the aforesaid documents were not supplied to the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE reply to the relevant paragraphs in the writ petition alleging that the relevant documents referred to in the charge- sheet were not supplied to him is contained in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, but this paragraph does not dispute the allegation that the copies of the aforesaid documents were not supplied to the petitioner. This assertion of the petitioner that the copies of the relevant documents referred to in the charge- sheet were not supplied to him has not been seriously disputed by the respondent. ( 5 ) HENCE in view of the decision of the supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Shatrughan lal, (supra), this writ petition has to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated June 8, 1999 quashed. However, it is open to the authority concerned to hold a fresh enquiry and pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. .