JUDGMENT By the Court.—Aggrieved by the orders dated 5.8.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), 08.08.2000 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and 19.12.2000 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby certain minor punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner, the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by means of the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. He has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the said orders. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Rural Engineering Services on 2.8.1972 and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis on 1.5.1981 whereat he was regularised vide order dated 16.4.1995. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.9.1998 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) which contains four charges of non-observance of the procedure prescribed under the Financial Handbook for awarding contract during the period of 1994-95 to 1996-97 when he was working as Executive Engineer to Rural Engineering Services, Gonda, for the period 1994-95 when he was posted at Bahraich in the same capacity and for the year 1990 when he was posted at Pratapgarh. A supplementary charge-sheet dated 1.11.1998 was issued to the petitioner with respect to similar allegations for the period 1989-90 and another supplementary charge-sheet dated 2.12.1998 was issued with respect to the period of 1996-97. The petitioner after receiving the charge-sheet dated 18.9.1998, vide his letter dated 5.11.1998 required the authorities to permit him inspection of the relevant documents. Again reminders were sent on 14.12.1998 and 27.1.1999 pursuant whereto vide letter dated 9.2.1999 the Inquiry Officer directed the concerned Executive Engineers of the respective divisions to make the relevant documents available to the petitioner. It is however said that despite repeated requests made by the petitioner, the documents were not made available to him. Some of the documents, the petitioner, however, could collect on his own from the concerned division and thereafter submitted reply on 8.12.1999 denying all the charges levelled against him. The supplementary charge sheet dated 1.11.1998 was replied by the petitioner vide his letter dated April, 1999 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). Some of the documents, the petitioner, however, could collect on his own from the concerned division and thereafter submitted reply on 8.12.1999 denying all the charges levelled against him. The supplementary charge sheet dated 1.11.1998 was replied by the petitioner vide his letter dated April, 1999 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). It is said that the Inquiry Officer neither fixed any dare for oral inquiry nor in fact held any oral inquiry whatsoever and instead submitted report in respect to charge sheet dated 18.9.1998 which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.4.2000 requiring him to submit his representation. From a perusal thereof the petitioner came to know that the Inquiry Officer earlier submitted his report on 5.2.2000 which was examined by the State Government and thereafter it directed the Inquiry Officer to hold further inquiry and submit a fresh report. Thereupon the Inquiry Officer himself examined documents in various divisions visiting Gonda on 24.2.2000, Pratapgarh on 25.3.2000 and Bahraich on 27.3.2000 where the petitioner was posted at the relevant time and submitted his report on 1.4.2000. The Inquiry Officer found charge No. 1-A with respect to the year 1984-85 when the petitioner was posted at Bahraich not proved. In respect to charge No. 1-B he found that in respect to Horticulture Department, Residential Building, Animal Husbandry and Jawahar Rojgar Yojna the petitioner was responsible for negative expenditure and to that extent charge was proved. The charges No. 2-A and 4 were not found proved, charge No. 2-B with respect to purchase of material, though there was no necessity, was found proved and charge No. 3 was found partly proved. The petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated 7.5.2000 stating that the Inquiry Officer before submitting his report did not give any opportunity to the petitioner and, therefore, the report dated 1.4.2000 cannot be acted upon being in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice. In respect to supplementary charge-sheets the petitioner did not receive information as to whether Inquiry Officer submitted any report since neither any oral inquiry was conducted nor any opportunity was afforded to him at any point of time nor the inquiry report was ever made available to the petitioner requiring him to submit his objections. All of sudden, the respondents authorities passed impugned orders. All of sudden, the respondents authorities passed impugned orders. Vide order dated 5.8.2000 the punishment of censure was imposed upon the petitioner with the direction to place the same on record for the year 2000-01. The order dated 8.8.2000 imposed the punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect and ‘Censure’ placing on record for the year 2000-01. The petitioner made representations against the punishment order dated 8.8.2000 which has been rejected by the third impugned order dated 19.12.2000. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a very strange procedure was adopted in the present case inasmuch as in the year 1998 old and stale charges were levelled against him whereagainst he requested the authorities to first allow him to inspect the relevant documents so that he may submit reply which were not made available to him despite instructions to the concerned authorities. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer without holding any oral inquiry, whatsoever submitted his report. The said report was not accepted by the State Government and it directed the Inquiry Officer for further inquiry. The Inquiry Officer did not inform the petitioner thereafter and instead submitted, on his own, another report whereupon the impugned orders have been passed and, therefore, the entire proceedings are in utter violation of principles of natural justice as well as Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) as applicable in the State of U.P. at the relevant time. Thus the entire proceedings as conducted in the present case are illegal and liable to be set aside. 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that after service of three charge-sheets upon the petitioner, he himself obtained relevant documents and submitted his reply on 8.12.1999 and April 1999. There was no request of the petitioner for holding any oral inquiry. The Inquiry Officer verified information from the original records of the concerned divisions and submitted report on 5.2.2000, a copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure-CA2 to the counter affidavit. The report shows that all the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet dated 18.9.1998 were not found proved except charge No. 4 in respect whereof he held that since the documents were not made available to him, therefore, no finding can be recorded. With respect to the supplementary charge-sheets he said that he would submit his report later on. With respect to the supplementary charge-sheets he said that he would submit his report later on. Thereafter Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 7.2.2000 in respect to the supplementary charge-sheet dated 1.11.1998 observing that charges No. 2 and 3 are not proved and in respect to charge No. 1 in the absence of document, no finding can be recorded. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services did not find the inquiry reports to be satisfactory and, therefore, directed the Inquiry Officer to make further inquiry, verify the record on his own and submit fresh report. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer submitted fresh reports dated 1.4.2000 with respect to the charge-sheet dated 18.9.1998 and with respect to the supplementary charge sheet dated 1.11.1998 on 5.4.2000. The said reports were furnished to the petitioner vide Government’s letter dated 25.4.2000 and 5.5.2000. Nothing has been said in the entire counter affidavit with respect to the supplementary charge-sheet dated 02.12.1998. 5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit wherein (para 14 of the rejoinder affidavit) he has specifically denied service of the alleged notice dated 5.5.2000 alongwith inquiry report dated 5.4.2000. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Here is a case where the disciplinary authority is the State Government and it decided to hold a regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner for which one Sri B.N. Tiwari, Superintending Engineer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. It is no doubt true that he issued three charge-sheets to the petitioner i.e. dated 18.9.1998, 1.11.1998 and 2.12.1998. The petitioner did not admit any of the allegations contained in the charge sheets and denied all the allegations. From the reply submitted by the petitioner it is also evident that he made complaint of non-availability of the relevant documents from the concerned divisions despite the directions issued by the Inquiry Officer. Though in the reply he did not specifically stated that an oral inquiry should be conducted by the Inquiry Officer but it is also evident from the record that in respect to certain charges he required the Inquiry Officer to give him opportunity to clarify the position in case any material adverse against him is made available to the Inquiry Officer by the department. In respect to charge No. 2-B of the charge-sheet dated 18.9.1998, on page No. 66 of the paper book, the petitioner has said : “Yadi Is Sambandh Me Adhishashi Abhiyanta, Gonda Dwara Koi Suchna/Anavasyak Samagri Ki Suchi Uplabdh Karai Jati Hai, To Use Kripya Mujhe Uplabdh Karane Ka Kast Karen, Taki Main Uske Sambandh Me Aur Sthiti Spast Karte Hue Vastavikta Se Avgat Kara Sakun.” 8. Similarly in the end of his reply again he has made similar request as is evident from the following : “Is Sambandh Me Janch Adhikari Mahoday Prakhand Pratapgarh Se Mere Ukta Kathan Ki Pusti Kar Len, Aur Yadi Is Asthai Agraday Ke Prapt Ke Sambandh Me Koi Abhilekh Janch Adhikari Mahoday Ko Prapt Ho Jaye, Tab Wah Mujhe Yah Abhilekh Prapt Karakar Mujhse Punah Uttar Prapt Karne Ki Kripa Karen Anyatha Mujhe Is Arop Se Mukt Karne Ki Kripa Karen.” 9. Despite of the aforesaid request of petitioner it is evident and virtually admitted by the respondents that no oral inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer and neither he fixed any date for oral inquiry wherein the charges could have been proved against the petitioner nor any date was fixed giving any opportunity to the petitioner to place his defence. The charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheets by itself cannot be treated to be proved unless by producing evidence, documentary/oral, the charges are proved before the Inquiry Officer and thereafter it would be turn of the delinquent employee to produce his defence to disprove the charges. There is no such law in disciplinary matters that once charges are framed against an employee/officer, the same stand proved unless disproved by the delinquent employee. The subsequent procedure adopted by the respondents as well as the Inquiry Officer is also disturbing, inasmuch as it appears that the Inquiry Officer in respect to the charge sheet dated 18.9.1998 submitted his report on 5.2.2000 wherein none of the charges were found proved against the petitioner, except of charge No. 4. In respect to other charges he clearly mentioned that the charges were not proved and in respect to charge No. 4 he said that in the absence of documents, no finding can be recorded. Similarly in respect to the supplementary charge sheet dated 1.11.1998 also in his report dated 7.2.2000, none of the charges were found proved against the petitioner. In respect to other charges he clearly mentioned that the charges were not proved and in respect to charge No. 4 he said that in the absence of documents, no finding can be recorded. Similarly in respect to the supplementary charge sheet dated 1.11.1998 also in his report dated 7.2.2000, none of the charges were found proved against the petitioner. It is always open to the disciplinary authority not to accept the inquiry report and require the Inquiry Officer to hold a fresh inquiry or further inquiry in the matter but if such a direction is issued, it is incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to issue a notice to the delinquent employee and thereafter hold further inquiry permitting the delinquent employee to participate therein. No further inquiry can be held by the Inquiry Officer at the back of the delinquent officer. Any such proceeding is wholly void being in utter violation of principles of natural justice as well as the well recognised procedure in the matter of departmental inquiry. The learned Standing Counsel to meet the above flaw, submitted that since the punishments imposed upon the petitioner are only minor, therefore, the aforesaid flaw in the procedure of inquiry, even if it is treated to have occurred, may not vitiate the entire proceedings, inasmuch as for minor punishment no regular oral inquiry is provided under the Rules. With respect to charge sheet dated 2.12.1998 nothing has been said in the counter affidavit as to what findings were recorded by the Inquiry Officer and thereafter in what manner the matter proceeded. On the contrary, it appears that the two orders of punishment have been passed by the disciplinary authority pursuant to the charge-sheets dated 18.9.1998 and 1.11.1998. 10. The submission is wholly misconceived for the reason the disciplinary authority did not proceed to hold inquiry under Rule 55-B of the Rules but instead it has proceeded to hold inquiry by issuing a charge-sheet upon the petitioner under Rule 55 by appointing an Inquiry Officer. If the procedure for imposing minor penalty would have been followed by the disciplinary authority at the very start of the proceedings, there was no question of appointment of any Inquiry Officer, inasmuch as under Rule 55-B there is no requirement of appointing any Inquiry Officer or to issue to formal charge-sheet. If the procedure for imposing minor penalty would have been followed by the disciplinary authority at the very start of the proceedings, there was no question of appointment of any Inquiry Officer, inasmuch as under Rule 55-B there is no requirement of appointing any Inquiry Officer or to issue to formal charge-sheet. The fact that the Inquiry Officer was appointed and that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner is a clear indication that the charges, if proved, major penalty might have been imposed upon the petitioner. What ultimately follows would not be a acid test for the validity of the procedure adopted by the authorities. It is to be seen whether the procedure followed by the authorities is consistent and in consonance with the action they have initially taken against the concerned persons. In the present case, the Inquiry Officer was appointed and charge-sheets were issued to the petitioner. It is thus beyond any doubt and evident that a regular departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and, therefore, the entire procedure prescribed under Rule 55 of the Rules was to be followed. Non holding of oral inquiry in such a case is a serious matter and goes to the root of the case. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 , considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills and others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 and Laturi Singh v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 6.5.2005. 12. An oral inquiry would be necessary even if the delinquent employee has failed to submit reply to the charge-sheet. In State of U.P. and another v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that even if the employee has failed to submit reply to the charge-sheet, it would not absolve the Inquiry Officer from proceeding with the oral inquiry and submit report as to whether charge is proved or not. After recording of evidence, he will find out whether the charge is proved or not and submit report to the disciplinary authority. After recording of evidence, he will find out whether the charge is proved or not and submit report to the disciplinary authority. 13. The aforesaid exposition of law makes it clear that the delinquent employee has a right to defend himself at different stages. When the charge-sheet is served upon him, he has a right to submit his reply and in case he does not submit reply, that itself would not amount to admission of guilt or that the charge stand proved. If the allegations are serious and may result in major penalty, the disciplinary authority may appoint Inquiry Officer. Such Inquiry Officer, thereafter would have to fix a date for oral evidence. At this stage the delinquent employee has a right to participate in the oral inquiry, examine witnesses, if produced by the department, and after the evidence of the department is completed, the delinquent employee may produce evidence in his defence. During the course of oral inquiry, the delinquent employee has right to participate at every stage and date and if there is any failure in participation on one or more occasions, the Inquiry Officer cannot deny him participation from the subsequent stage. The delinquent employee can participate at subsequent other stage also. The Inquiry Officer, after completion of oral inquiry, will submit its report after discussing the entire material and if any charge is proved, the disciplinary authority shall supply a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee and he would again have a right to submit reply to the inquiry report. 14. Non holding of oral inquiry, therefore, is a serious flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment. 15. There is another aspect of the matter which also has the effect of annulling the entire disciplinary proceeding. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and found the charges not proved thereafter when the disciplinary authority directed the Inquiry Officer to submit fresh report, it was incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to afford opportunity to the petitioner to participate in such further inquiry and only thereafter it could have submitted any inquiry report. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and found the charges not proved thereafter when the disciplinary authority directed the Inquiry Officer to submit fresh report, it was incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to afford opportunity to the petitioner to participate in such further inquiry and only thereafter it could have submitted any inquiry report. Since no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, in our view the entire procedure followed by the respondents is wholly illegal and in utter violation of Rule 55 of the Rules read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India and vitiates the impugned orders of punishment also. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 5.8.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), 8.8.2000 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and 19.12.2000 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. ————