JUDGMENT Hon’ble Allah Raham, J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer passed by the State Government on 26.8.1987 communicated on 4.10.1987 through letter dated 14.9.1987 of the Executive Engineer Irrigation Division, Sharda Nagar, Lakhimpur Kheri, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner after obtaining civil engineering degree joined the services as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department in January, 1980. He was given first posting at Pithauragarh where he was given the charge of Nainital Sub Division under Investigation and Planning Almora (Now Pithauragarh, Nainital and Almora are part of Uttaranchal State) on March 2, 1980. 3. A charge-sheet containing four charges was served upon the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, Superintending Engineer Irrigation Construction Circle, Almora. The charge-sheet is dated 6.7.1985 Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 4. It is alleged by the petitioner that he made request to the authorities for availability of certain documents pertaining to evidences. However, the authorities failed to make him available the relevant documents to defend the charges. Instead, it is alleged, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 4.9.1985 Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner without getting opportunity to consult the relevant documents submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 18.9.1985 in which he pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him. The petitioner specifically mentioned in his reply that if he is not exonerated from the charges on the basis of his interim reply, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that he may be given opportunity to furnish detailed explanation after giving facilities for consultation of documents and thereafter oral enquiry including examination and cross examination of witnesses may be conducted. The reply of the petitioner is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer vide his letter dated 20.11.1985, Annexure-5 to the writ petition that the petitioner may see the record in office of the Investigation and Planning Division Almora and that he may appear before him in his office on 5.12.1985 to make oral submissions which he wanted to make. The petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer vide his letter dated 20.11.1985, Annexure-5 to the writ petition that the petitioner may see the record in office of the Investigation and Planning Division Almora and that he may appear before him in his office on 5.12.1985 to make oral submissions which he wanted to make. The petitioner went to the office of Investigation and Planning Division Almora for inspection of document but he could not see the record as Sri Khaisi Ram, Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer were on leave. The petitioner also appeared before the Executive Engineer on 5.12.1985 and made his oral submissions. He mentioned this fact in his letter dated 7.12.1985 Annexure-6 to the writ petition that the petitioner would again come to see the record on 18.12.1985. On 5.12.1985 during interview, the Enquiry Officer appeared to be satisfied that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the alleged irregularities particularly in view of the fact that he was a new entrant in the department and whatever action was taken by him, the petitioner pointed out to the Enquiry Officer that complete records have not been given to him and his final reply has not been taken, the Enquiry Officer observed that no full-fledged enquiry is warranted because the petitioner can be held liable for imposition of only minor punishment of censor etc. and he would send his report for releasing the petitioner from suspension. Thereafter the petitioner did not hear anything for over one year. Therefore, he approached the opposite party to know about the delay in releasing him from suspension. When the petitioner came to know that his case has been referred to Public Service Commission to obtain advice for imposition of punishment, he made representation dated 11.4.1987 Annexure-7 to the writ petition to the opposite party, a copy of which was also sent to the Secretary Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad in which it was requested that if his preliminary explanation was not found satisfactory, he may be supplied the relevant documents and given opportunity to furnish his final reply. Thereafter no oral enquiry was conducted nor any witness was examined in the presence of the petitioner and no opportunity for cross-examination was given. Thereafter no oral enquiry was conducted nor any witness was examined in the presence of the petitioner and no opportunity for cross-examination was given. It is further alleged that the documents/evidence pertaining to the charges have been relied upon to take adverse decision against the petitioner without making their verification and examination in oral enquiry in presence of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order dated 26.8.1987 Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is alleged that the order of dismissal of the petitioner has been passed without holding proper and lawful enquiry and without giving him reasonable opportunity for defence. The enquiry report has neither been disclosed to the petitioner nor the same has been made part of the punishment order. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to know as to why the explanation given in reply to the charges was not found acceptable to the Enquiry Officer as well as to the Punishing Authority. The order of punishment, is therefore, non speaking. 6. The respondent State has contested the petition on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of being heard. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner through his letter dated 7.12.1985 had confirmed that he had seen the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had himself said that whatever documents are to be inspected, he will inspect them by 18.12.1985, thus there was nothing left to be done on the part of the Enquiry Officer. On this count, in his letter dated 7.12.1985, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the petitioner has reiterated that he has already stated his case in his letter dated 18.9.1985—Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It has also been stated by the respondent State that the conclusion of the enquiry has been mentioned in the letter dated 26.8.1987 Annexure-1 to the writ petition and the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the charges which have been proved on record. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. The controversy is very limited in this petition. The following two points require adjudication in this case : (1) Whether or not the petitioner was afforded opportunity to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer? 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. The controversy is very limited in this petition. The following two points require adjudication in this case : (1) Whether or not the petitioner was afforded opportunity to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer? Either way effect? (2) Whether the inquiry report has not been disclosed to the petitioner nor the same has been made part of the punishment order? If so its effect Point No. 1 8. The petitioner’s case is that the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer were not supplied to him. The petitioner’s specific plea is that he had gone to the office of Investigation and Planning Division Almora for inspection of documents but he could not see the record as Sri Khasi Ram Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer were on leave. The rival contention of the respondent is that the petitioner had himself that he would inspect the documents by 18.12.1985. We quote the exact letter which is as follows : “Main sheeghra he puna dinak 18.12.1985 tak aakar avashya he dekh lunga. Jahan tak kathan prastut karne ka sambandh hai, vah main pahle he apne patra dinak 18.9.1985 dwara kar chukka hun. Evam maukhik kathan bhi aapke samaksha kah chukka hun.” 9. It is clear from the letter quoted above that till 7.12.1985 the petitioner had not inspected the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had promised that he would inspect these documents on 18.12.1985. Now we have to see if there is anything on record to suggest that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to inspect the document on 18.12.1985 or before this date or on a date thereafter. It is the definite case of the petitioner that the documents were neither supplied to him nor was he given opportunity to inspect them. The petitioner submitted his preliminary explanation dated 18.9.1985 Annexure 4 to the writ petition. At page 10 of the explanation, the petitioner submitted that if the Enquiry Officer is satisfied with his explanation the matter ends there and in case the explanation is not accepted, the entire evidence relied upon by the Enquiry Officer may be supplied to him so that he is in a position to submit his detailed defence and explanation. 10. At page 10 of the explanation, the petitioner submitted that if the Enquiry Officer is satisfied with his explanation the matter ends there and in case the explanation is not accepted, the entire evidence relied upon by the Enquiry Officer may be supplied to him so that he is in a position to submit his detailed defence and explanation. 10. The respondent State has placed much reliance upon the letter dated 7.12.1985 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner himself had volunteered to inspect the documents up to 18.12.1985, therefore, he cannot complain that he was not afforded full opportunity of defending himself. In the same letter the petitioner has stated that he has submitted his explanation through letter dated 18.9.1985 and has made oral submission also before the Enquiry Officer. In the counter affidavit also reliance has been placed on the letter dated 7.12.1985 Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In the same petitioner met the Enquiry Officer on 27.1.1986 and said that no more documents are to be inspected and his explanation dated 18.9.1985 may be taken as final. This averment of the State has been denied by the petitioner in para 6 of the rejoinder affidavit. He has stated that, “.. . After submission of the letter on 7.12.1985 the petitioner was not made to hear anything in the matter and it is wholly false to allege that the petitioner reconfirmed on 27.1.1986 that his statement given on 18.9.1985 be deemed as final”. It is thus, clear that the record does not support the version of the respondent State that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to inspect the document relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has successfully proved that the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer were not supplied to the petitioner nor was the petitioner given any opportunity to inspect the same. The petitioner consistently raised this point before the Enquiry Officer and the same point was also raised in his letter dated 11.4.1987 Annexure -7 to the writ petition addressed to the Secretary Irrigation Department Government of Uttar Pradesh. It is the settled law that the delinquent must be afforded an opportunity to inspect the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer in case copy of the same cannot be supplied to the delinquent. It is the settled law that the delinquent must be afforded an opportunity to inspect the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer in case copy of the same cannot be supplied to the delinquent. The law on the point has been laid down in Prathma Bank Head Office Muradabad v. Vijay Kumar Goyal, 1989 (4) SCC 441 . In this case adequate opportunity to examine the relevant documents was not given to the delinquent official. The Apex Court held : “... as all the three Courts below have considered the matter in great detail and we agree with the High Court that the inquiry officer should have given adequate opportunity to the respondent to examine the relevant documents for the purpose of preparing his reply. Not having done so, the further orders in the proceeding must be held to be vitiated”. The departmental proceedings against the delinquent respondent were quashed and the decree for the plaintiff’s reinstatement in service with consequential benefit was confirmed. The Apex Court directed that : “If the bank authorities be of the view that in spite of the delay of several years the inquiry ought to be completed, it will be open to them to proceed with it and to take further steps in the proceeding from the stage where it stood on July 5, 1983 but they should indicate their intention to do so to the respondent and also serve copies of the relevant documents on him”. (emphasis added) 11. In Committee of Management Kissan Degree College v. Shambhu Saran Pandey, 1995 (1) SCC 404 , the respondent was served a charge-sheet on 22.3.1981. The respondent gave his reply on 13.4.1981 to the charge-sheet. The respondent wanted inspection of the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet. Admittedly neither the documents had been supplied nor an opportunity to inspect had been given to the respondent. Instead the Inquiry Officer in his letter dated 18.5.1981 had given the reply stating that since the respondent had already given reply to the charge-sheet item wise, he was at a liberty to inspect the document at the time of final argument on 7.6.1981. The Apex Court held that it is erroneous procedure and does not confirm to the principles of natural justice. The Apex Court held that it is erroneous procedure and does not confirm to the principles of natural justice. We may quote the following extract of the ruling : “It is stated in the letter written by the enquiry officer that inspection of documents would be permitted at the time of final hearing. That obviously is an erroneous procedure followed by the enquiry officer. In the first instance he should be given the opportunity for inspection and thereafter conduct the enquiry and then hear the delinquent at the time of conclusion of his enquiry. In this case that procedure was not adopted. Therefore, the procedure in conducting the enquiry adopted is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice”. 12. The law on the point has further been laid down in State the respondent a Lekhpal was dismissed from service after a regular departmental enquiry. The dismissal order was challenged before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal which by its judgment dated 13.3.1981 allowed the claim petition with the findings that the departmental proceeding conducted against the respondent as also the order dated 28.2.1977 by which he was removed from service were illegal and void. A writ petition filed by the State was dismissed summarily by the High Court on 4.2.1982. The State contended before the Apex Court that the opportunity to inspect the documents was, a matter of fact, provided to the delinquent. It was however, clear from the written statement that the copies of the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet purporting to substantiate a particular charge were not supplied to the delinquent because it was not necessary that the delinquent had every right to inspect them at any time. It was also pleaded by the State that it is wrong to say that the delinquent was greatly handicapped for want of copies of the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. Commenting upon this plea of the State, the Apex Court held that : “This paragraph of the written statement contains an admission of the appellant that copies of the documents specified in the charge sheet were not supplied to the respondent as the respondent had every right to inspect them at any time. Commenting upon this plea of the State, the Apex Court held that : “This paragraph of the written statement contains an admission of the appellant that copies of the documents specified in the charge sheet were not supplied to the respondent as the respondent had every right to inspect them at any time. This assertion clearly indicates that although it is admitted that the copies of the documents were not supplied to the respondent and although he had the right to inspect those documents, neither were the copies given to him nor were the records made available to him for inspection. If the appellant did not intend to given the copies of the documents to the respondent, it should have been indicated to the respondent in writing that he may inspect those documents. Merely saying that the respondent could have inspected the documents at any time is not enough. He has to asked for by him may be inspected. The access to record must be assured to him.” (emphasis added) 13. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court on the point, it is clear that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to inspect the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. In para 7 of the counter affidavit, it has been sworn on behalf of the respondent that after the letter dated 7.12.1985 Annexure-6, the Enquiry Officer was convinced that the petitioner had inspected all the documents and nothing was left to be done by the Enquiry Officer on this count. If there was any difficulty before the petitioner, he could have informed the Enquiry Officer. 14. This assertion of the respondent is quite contrary to the basic principle of natural justice that access to documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer must be ensured to the delinquent. Denial of access to these documents vitiates the enquiry against the petitioner. The effect of the discussion attempted above is that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to effectively defend himself against the charges framed against him. The case law discussed herein above leads us to the irresistible conclusion that the enquiry is vitiated and must be set aside. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly Point No. 2 : 15. The effect of the discussion attempted above is that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to effectively defend himself against the charges framed against him. The case law discussed herein above leads us to the irresistible conclusion that the enquiry is vitiated and must be set aside. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly Point No. 2 : 15. It has been pleaded in para 13 of the petition that the enquiry report has neither been disclosed to the petitioner nor the same has been made part of the punishment order. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to know as to why the explanation given in reply to the charges was not found acceptable to the Enquiry Officer as well as to the Punishing Authority. The order of punishment is therefore, non speaking. Annexure-1 to the writ petition is a letter dated 14.9.1987 through which office order dated 26.8.1987 was served upon the petitioner. The office order dated 26.8.1987 is the dismissal order of the petitioner from service. A perusal of this office order shows that only the substance of the enquiry report has been mentioned in it. It neither discloses the evidence nor the reasons for conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer have been mentioned. The enquiry report has not been made part of the dismissal order. This Court in B.P Chaurasia v. State of U.P., 1983 (1) LCD 169, has held that this is a non speaking order inasmuch as it does not discuss either the evidence or the reasons for the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer nor does it make the enquiry report a part of the dismissal order. Mere statement of conclusion, is different from reasons for conclusion. The order merely states the conclusion, without giving any reasons therefor and without enclosing the enquiry report either. As such it is a non speaking order. It must therefore, be held to be illegal. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly. 16. The cumulative effect of the conclusions arrived at point No. 1 and point No. 2 is that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 17. The writ petition is therefore, allowed with costs. As such it is a non speaking order. It must therefore, be held to be illegal. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly. 16. The cumulative effect of the conclusions arrived at point No. 1 and point No. 2 is that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 17. The writ petition is therefore, allowed with costs. The order of dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer passed by the State Government on 26.8.1987 communicated on 4.10.1987 through letter dated 14.9.1987 of the Executive Engineer Irrigation Division Sharda Nagar, Lakhimpur Kheri contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and back wages. Petition Allowed. ————