JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order of punishment dated 23.8.2006 (Annex.-1) imposing punishment of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect, which has been subsequently reduced to withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect by the Appellate authority by Order Dated 18.1.2008 (Annex.-2). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner while working as Personal Assistant of the Orissa High Court, Cuttack was served with a charge sheet in Disciplinary Proceeding No. 1 of 2005 (Annex.- 3). Following charges were drawn up against him. Whereas you while working as P.A. to Hon'ble Shri Justice R.N. Biswal were neither sincere in coming to Court in time nor co- operating in Court's work and were taking frequent leave. As apparent from your past conduct, you have been warned time and again for such type of lapses. 3. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the said charges and subsequently it was not found satisfactory. The enquiry was conducted and after completion of the same, punishment of withholding two. annual increments without cumulative effect was imposed. However, the Appellate authority vide Order Dated 18.1.2008 reduced the said punishment to withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect. Hence this Writ Petition. 4. Mr. Devanand Misra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that on the top portion of the charge sheet itself which has been served upon the Petitioner, a note has been given stating that the charges must be specific, each charge should be drawn up and separately numbered and should give the date, occasion and the nature of the offence committed by the delinquent employee. The charges levelled against the Petitioner do not meet the aforesaid requirement. Therefore, the Petitioner was not able to defend himself properly. As in the instant case, no specific instance or date or time had been given when the delinquency was committed, the order of punishment is vitiated. 5. On the contrary, Mr. P.K. Khuntia, Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the petition contending that undoubtedly the charges were not specific, but the Petitioner was fully aware of the charges and therefore, the punishment cannot be interfered with. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In Surath Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. P.K. Khuntia, Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the petition contending that undoubtedly the charges were not specific, but the Petitioner was fully aware of the charges and therefore, the punishment cannot be interfered with. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In Surath Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. State of West Bengal, the Apex Court held that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on vague charges as the same do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make an effective defence because he may not be aware as what is the allegation against him and what kind of defence he can put in rebuttal thereof. The Supreme Court observed as under: The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the specific contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him. 8. In a case where the charge-sheet is accompanied with the statement of facts and the allegation may not be specific in charge-sheet but may be crystal clear from the statement of charges, in such a situation as both constitute the same document, it may not be held that as the charge was not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. (Vide State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sree Rama Rao, ).Thus, where a delinquent is served a charge-sheet without giving specific and definite charge and no statement of allegation is served along with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. In Sawai Singh Vs. (Vide State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sree Rama Rao, ).Thus, where a delinquent is served a charge-sheet without giving specific and definite charge and no statement of allegation is served along with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. In Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan the Apex Court held that in a domestic enquiry the charge must be clear, definite, and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence; adduced should not be perfunctory. Even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair-play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. 10. In U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. v. Ram Chandra Yadav AIR 2003 SC 3596, while dealing with a similar case, the Apex Court held as under: In other words, what is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation, whether he has been given an opportunity to state his case and whether the departmental authority has acted in good faith. If these requirements are satisfied then it cannot be said that the principle of natural justice has been violated. 11. The purpose of holding enquiry against any person is not only with a view to establish the charge against him or imposing penalty, rather it is conducted with the object of enquiry recording the truth and in that sense the outcome of an enquiry may either result in establishing or vindicating his stand and result in his exoneration. Therefore, fair action on the part of the authority concerned is of a paramount necessity. 12. In a given case the Enquiry Officer may collect certain information during the enquiry behind the back of the delinquent. Unless it is disclosed to him and the delinquent is given an opportunity to explain, the said material cannot be relied upon. (Vide Executive Committee, U.P. Warehousing Corporation Vs. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, and State of Assam and Another Vs. Mahendra Kumar Das and Others, ). 13. Enquiry Officer is not entitled to collect evidence behind the back of the delinquent on a charge framed against him and arrive at his finding on the basis of that private enquiry. (Vide Executive Committee, U.P. Warehousing Corporation Vs. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, and State of Assam and Another Vs. Mahendra Kumar Das and Others, ). 13. Enquiry Officer is not entitled to collect evidence behind the back of the delinquent on a charge framed against him and arrive at his finding on the basis of that private enquiry. (Vide Krishna Chandra Tandon v. Union of India AlR 1974 SC 1589). 14. Where a delinquent is given a show cause notice, it has to be considered objectively and not subjectively. The authority is under an obligation to specify as which part of the explanation of the delinquent is not acceptable and for what reason otherwise it would be a case of non-application of mind or not recording the reasons. (Vide B.D. Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, ). 15. In view of the above, law can be summarised that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on the vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry being vitiated for the reason that the State action does not remain a fair play, particularly where the consequences are penal in nature. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct. 16. In view of the above, as the charges drawn up against the Petitioner are totally vague and no specific instance, date and time of commission of the delinquency had been given. In such fact situation, it would not be permissible to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding. 17. The Writ Petition is allowed and the orders of punishment dated 23.8.2006 (Annex.1) & 18.1.2008 (Annex.2) are quashed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 18. I agree. Final Result : Allowed