JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri S.K. Verma and Shri Rajnesh Kumar learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner Shri Krishna Sharma (since deceased) while working as a peon in Collectorate, Aligarh was charged for misplacing/loss of 14 files which were handed over to him for being delivered to the Court of Naib Tehsildar out of the total 27 files. An inquiry was conducted after issuance of charge-sheet wherein in the reply to the charge-sheet, he stated that 14 files have lost but they are being searched. This statement was taken as his admission of his guilt on which he was dismissed from services vide order dated 2.5.1985. 3. Shri Krishna Sharma (since deceased), filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.3.1993. However, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an interim order on 1.11.1993 staying the operation of the dismissal order and thereafter the petitioner was allowed to continue in service, though liberty was given to the Government to take work or not but salary was to be paid regularly. 4. We are informed by the petitioner’s Counsel that in pursuance of the aforesaid interim order, Sri Krishna Sharma was reinstated into service and he retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation sometimes in February, 2001. Shri Krishna Sharma had expired on 25.12.2004 and is no more in the world. His heirs have been substituted. 5. Shri Krishna Sharma was appointed in the year 1962. He was dismissed from service on 2.5.1985 and remained out of employment till the passing of the interim order of this Court. 6. We find force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that mere statement of fact in the reply/letter dated 29.10.1984 to the inquiry officer that 14 files are missing from the Court of Naib Tehsildar which are being searched, could not have been taken as an admission of guilt by Shri Krishna Sharma and that in the absence of an unequivocal admission, it was obligatory upon the department to conduct a full fledged inquiry and get the charges proved and by not doing so, the impugned order of dismissal stands vitiated. 7. 7. In disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant usually and necessarily due opportunity is to be provided to the Government servant to participate in the inquiry and for that matter, he is required to be served with a charge-sheet containing precise charges with necessary documents/evidences which are sought to be relied upon against him. Opportunity is also to be given for providing additional copies of the documents if asked for, after commenting upon their relevance by the inquiry officer and if it is not possible for any valid reason, to provide copies of any such document, then inspection of such documents be allowed to the delinquent employee by providing free access to such record. The charges can be found proved on the evidences tendered by the department or when there is a clear cut admission made by the delinquent employee/Government servant admitting or accepting the charge. Any conditional or uncertain statement which may lead to ambiguity or possible interpretation of two or more views, cannot be taken as admission for proving the guilt of a Government servant/delinquent employee. The admission has to be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal with free will and voluntarily. Any statement or admission given under duress can also not be accepted as confirmed statement or admission of the delinquent. 8. In the instant case, the Government servant had brought two things to the notice of the inquiry officer ; (i) that a police case has also been registered against him in which the investigation is going on, therefore the inquiry be stayed till the outcome of the police inquiry and (ii) that he was handed over 27 files for being delivered in the Court of Naib Tehsildar out of which 14 files are missing which are being searched. 9. Later on the police submitted a final report. 10. The aforesaid reply given by the petitioner in which he did accept that 27 files were actually brought to the Court of Naib Tehsildar from which 14 files were missing was treated as ‘admission’ of the guilt of the employee. The inquiry officer treating this statement of fact in the letter of 29.10.1984 as conclusive evidence of admission and therefore, did not even care to get the charges proved by adducing any evidence. 11. The inquiry officer treating this statement of fact in the letter of 29.10.1984 as conclusive evidence of admission and therefore, did not even care to get the charges proved by adducing any evidence. 11. May be there a case where Court files or Government files are misplaced or lost, for passing an order of dismissal from service but in doing so, it is necessary that the charge should be established and the role of the person against whom charge of misplacement has been levelled, should also be proved on the basis of material on record unless of course there is a clear cut admission of the charged employee which requires no further proof in the matter. 12. The employee in the instant case, only made a statement of fact, in his reply, about the loss of 14 files. Since the files were misplaced, there could not have been any denial of the said fact by any person, including the charged employee. The question was, whether Shri Krishna was responsible for the loss of files, or that he was guilty of any misconduct. It is also possible that in case, enquiry had been held, circumstances might have come to the fore, establishing, that even though the files were misplaced which were supposed to be in the custody of the deceased employee but even then there was some valid defence or mitigating circumstances for not awarding of major punishment or on finding that no fault could be attributed to him, he might have been exonerated. 13. Shri Krishna Sharma did not accept the responsibility or his default in the loss of files. It was thus incumbent upon the department to prove the charge and the inquiry officer was obliged to hold the inquiry in accordance with law, giving opportunity to the parties to press their respective claims. 14. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the factual as well as legal position in this regard and has dismissed the claim on the same ground which did find favour by the appointing authority, for the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 23.3.1993, is hereby set aside. The order of dismissal dated 2.5.1988, is also quashed. 16. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 23.3.1993, is hereby set aside. The order of dismissal dated 2.5.1988, is also quashed. 16. We, however, direct that since Shri Krishna Sharma was reinstated into service vide interim order dated 1.1 1.1993 and he was paid salary after his joining and is no more in the world, as such the petitioners would not be entitled to any amount of salary for the period during which he had not worked, till passing of the interim order dated 1.11.1993. However, the aforesaid period shall be counted as on duty and shall be counted for the purpose of post retiral benefits and consequently if any dues had become payable to the heirs of Shri Krishna Sharma, the same shall be cleared in accordance with the Rules, within three months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order. ———