Anil Kumar, J.;—Heard Sri Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashutosh Shukla and Sri R.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents.2. By means of the present writ petition, the order dated 18.4.2002 passed by opposite party no.2 as contained in Annexure no. 19 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service is under challenge.3. The factual matrix of the present case as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner who was working on the post of Secretary and posted at U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies Centralized Services, District-Unnao (hereinafter referred to as 'Society') was suspended by order dated 27.1.1997 and aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 1076 (S/B) of 1997 Krishna Pal Sharma Vs. District Administrative Committee, U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies ( Centralized services ) Unnao and others and by order dated 27.8.1998 this Court had stayed the order of suspension of the petitioner. In pursuance of the above said fact, the petitioner was attached to head office of the society.4. On 9.2.1999, a chargesheet was served on the petitioner by which 18 charges were levelled against him. After receiving the same, he had requested that the necessary documents should be supplied to him in order to furnish the reply against the charges which were levelled on him by the chargesheet dated 9.2.1999. However the same were not given to the petitioner as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, having no other alternative before him, the petitioner submitted his reply on 1.5.2000 inter alia denying the charges which were levelled against him by chargesheet dated 9.2.1999.5. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter no time,date and place was fixed by the respondents for the purpose of conducting the domestic enquiry against the petitioner but the enquiry officer had submitted a enquiry report dated 27.5.2000, the same was placed before the Administrative Committee of the Society considered in its meeting dated 22.7.2000 and it was directed that Sri Dinesh Chandra be appointed as enquiry officer again to conduct the enquiry in the matter in question. Thereafter, Sri Dinesh Chandra, who was appointed as enquiry officer on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the chargesheet dated 9.2.1999 and taking into consideration the charge as mentioned in the chargesheet submitted enquiry report on 21.4.2001.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even Sri Dinesh Chandra second enquiry officer did not fix date, time and place for conducting the enquiry and submitted his enquiry report dated 21.4.2001.7. On 21.3.2002 a show cause notice alongwith the enquiry report was issued and the petitioner was directed to appear before the disciplinary authority alongwith the reply against the show cause notice for personal hearing. Thereafter the petitioner appeared before the disciplinary authority on 6.4.2002 and put his defence.8. The Disciplinary Authority/Punishing authority after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner in the matter in question in response to the show cause dated 21.3.2002 passed the impugned order dated 18.4.2002 thereby dismissing him from service, hence the present writ petition.9. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of dismissal dated 18.4.2002 (Annexure-19) passed by opposite party no.2 submits that the said order is totally illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice on two folds; firstly, no relevant documents and material had been given to the petitioner which were demanded by him in order to submit his reply to the charges which were levelled by chargesheet dated 9.2.1999 but the same were not supplied to him in spite of his request made in that regard, hence the so called inquiry proceedings and the inquiry report submitted against the petitioner; without supplying the relevant documents and materials which were taken into consideration by the inquiry officer in his report is an action which is against the principles of natural justice and rendered the impugned order bad in the eyes of law.10. Second line of argument which is advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that as no date, time and place had been fixed by the first inquiry officer as well as by the second enquiry officer (Dinesh Chandra) and they had not conducted any domestic enquiry thereby fixing date, time and place for the said purpose and simply on the basis of the charges levelled on him vide chargesheet dated 9.2.1999 and reply submitted by the petitioner dated 1.5.2000 submitted their enquiry report dated 27.5.2000 and 20.2.2002 respectively and the impugned dismissal order was passed. Accordingly the same is in violation of principles of natural justice, Article 14 of the Constitution of India, without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.11. Learned counsel for the respondent in rebuttal submits that in the present case after issuing chargesheet to the petitioner by which 18 charges were levelled against him, he submitted his reply and thereafter an enquiry has been conducted and the enquiry report dated 27.5.2000 was submitted and the same was placed before the Administrative Committee of the Society, who after considering the same appointed another enquiry officer Sri Dinesh Chandra, who again submitted his enquiry report on 20.2.2002 and after considering the entire material on record, the punishing authority/opposite party no.2 had issued show cause notice on 21.3.2002 annexing enquiry reports and the petitioner was required to submit his reply and to appear in person in order to defend himself on 6.4.2002. Thereafter the opposite party no.2 after hearing him and going through the record, had passed an order dated 18.4.2002 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service as such there is neither any illegality or infirmity in the order of dismissal passed by opposite party no.2 so the present writ petition filed by the petitioner has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed.12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record in view of the facts which have been stated herein above.13. In the present case, chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 9.2.1999 and after he had submitted a representation/letter (Annexure - 5) dated 11.1.2000 (Annexure no.5) thereby demanding the documents on the basis of which the charges were levelled against the him. In the present case, chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 9.2.1999 and after he had submitted a representation/letter (Annexure - 5) dated 11.1.2000 (Annexure no.5) thereby demanding the documents on the basis of which the charges were levelled against the him. However, the same were not given to the petitioner as such he submitted his reply on 1.5.2000, the first inquiry report was submitted; the same was placed before the Administrative Committee of the Society and Sri Dinesh Chandra was appointed as Second enquiry officer who again without conducting any fact finding domestic inquiry, submitted enquiry reports dated 20.2.2002, a show cause notice dated 21.3.2002 was issued alongwith the said inquiry reports and the petitioner was required to submit his defence and appear for personal hearing on 6.4.2002 and thereafter the order of dismissal dated 18.4.2002 was passed by opposite party no.2. Hence, in the instant case it is clearly established that no fact finding inquiry was conducted; it is well settled preposition of law that when a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a causal exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition to punishment including dismissal/removal from service.14. In Shaughnessy Vs. United States 345 US 206 (1952) ( Jackson, J.) a Judge of the United States Supreme Court has said :-"........ Procedural fairness and regularity are the indispensable essence of liberty. Several substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied."15. The effect of non - disclosure of relevant documents has been stated in Judicial Review of Administrative Action by De. Smith. Woolf and Jowell, 5 th Edn., p.442 as follows:"If relevant evidential material is not disclosed at all to a party who is potentially prejudiced by it, there is prima facie unfairness, irrespective of whether the material in question arose before, during or after the hearing. This proposition can be illustrated by a large number of modern cases involving the use of undisclosed reports by administrative tribunal and other adjudicating bodies. This proposition can be illustrated by a large number of modern cases involving the use of undisclosed reports by administrative tribunal and other adjudicating bodies. If the deciding body is or has the trappings of a judicial tribunal and receives or appears to receive evidence ex parte which is not fully disclosed, or holds ex parte inspections during the course or after the conclusion of the hearing, the case for setting the decision aside obviously very strong; the maxim that justice must be seen to be done can readily be invoked."16. In the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 772 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-"The proposition of law that a government employee facing a departmental enquiry is entitled to all the relevant statements, documents and other materials to enable him to have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry against the chartges is too well established to need any further reiteration. Nevertheless given the facts of this Case we may re-emphasis the law as stated by this Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Bhagat Ram (1975) 1 SCC 155 :"6. The State contended that the respondent was not entitled to get copies of statements. The reasoning of the State was that the respondent was given the opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses and during the cross-examination the respondent would have the opportunity of confronting the witnesses with the statements. It is contended that the synopsis was adequate to acquaint the respondent with the gist of the evidence.7. The meaning of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken is that the government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against charges on which inquiry is held. The government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so when he is told what the charges against him are. He can do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying statements is that the government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witness proposed to be examined against the government servant. He can do so when he is told what the charges against him are. He can do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying statements is that the government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witness proposed to be examined against the government servant. Unless the statement are given to the government servant he will not be able to have an effective and useful cross-examination.8.It is unjust and unfair to deny the government servant copies of statement of witnesses examined during investigation and produced at the inquiry in support of the charges levelled against the government servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirements of giving the government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken."17. Further an enquiry officer acting as a quasi- judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official, he has to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined and the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.18. In the present case it is late in a day to quarrel that regular inquiry means opportunity to submit reply to charge-sheet and also to lead evidence in defence. Even if the delinquent employee does not cooperate, it shall always be incumbent on the inquiry officer to record oral evidence to substantiate the charges. If the enquiry is not done in the manner as stated herein above then in that circumstances the enquiry conducted is in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and the impugned order passed on the basis of enquiry report, suffers from substantial illegality and violative of principles of natural justice and the order of punishment vitiates.19. In the case of Radhey Shayam Gupta Vs. In the case of Radhey Shayam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Limited, (1999) 2 SCC 21 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-" But in cases where the termination is preceded by an enquiry and evidence is received and findings as to misconduct of a definitive nature are arrived at behind the back of the officer and where on the basis of such a report, the termination order is issued, such an order will be violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the purpose of the enquiry is to find out the truth of the allegations with a view to punish him and not merely together evidence for a future regular departmental enquiry. In such cases, the termination is to be treated as based or founded upon misconduct and will be punitive. These are obviously not cases where the employer feels that there is a mere cloud against the employee's conduct but are cases where the employer has virtually accepted the definitive and clear findings of the enquiry officer, which are arrived at behind the back of the employee- even though such acceptance of findings is not recorded in the order of termination. That is why the misconduct is the foundation and not merely the motive in such cases".20. In the case of Gyan Das Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (27) LCD 926 this Court has held that :-"In the present case, undoubtedly, no oral evidence was recorded during the course of inquiry proceedings, It is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record oral evidence to substantiate charges. Documents on record should have been proved by cogent reasons by recording finding of fact on merit by the inquiry officer but the same has not been done. The inquiry has been conducted in utter disregard to principle of natural justice. Since the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the inquiry report which suffers from substantial illegality and violative of principles of natural justice, the order of punishment vitiates. The writ petitioner deserved to be allowed."21. Further the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others Vs. Since the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the inquiry report which suffers from substantial illegality and violative of principles of natural justice, the order of punishment vitiates. The writ petitioner deserved to be allowed."21. Further the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others Vs. Shri Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, 2009 (27) LCD 990 has held that :-"In case an employee is charged of misconduct and chargesheet is issued, it is to contain precise and specific charges along with the evidence which the department wants to rely upon, in proving the charge and the charges along with the copy of document should be provided to the delinquent. After asking the reply from the delinquent, the enquiry is to proceed where the charges are to be proved by the department concerned, on the basis of the evidence which the department chooses to produce, oral as well as documentary. The delinquent also has to be provided, adequate and reasonable opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal, may be oral or documentary or both. It is on the basis of evidence so led and the material available on record that the Inquiry Officer has to apply his mind to find out whether the charge levelled against him stands proved or not."22. As in the present case, neither any fact finding inquiry was held nor any evidence was led, moreover, no witnesses were examined only on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report and the same was the basis for passing of the impugned order of dismissal. As such the order of dismissal dated 18.04.2002 passed by opposite party no. 2 which is under challenge, is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and cannot sustain.23. Needless to mention herein that in the case of Canara Bank and others Vs. Debasis Das and others (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 557 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left open. that is done is to vacate the order assailed by virtue of its inherent defect, but the proceedings are not terminated.24. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTC (WBAB&O) Ltd. Vs. that is done is to vacate the order assailed by virtue of its inherent defect, but the proceedings are not terminated.24. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTC (WBAB&O) Ltd. Vs. Anjan K. Saha, (2004) 7 SCC 581 after taking into consideration the Constitutional Bench in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 has held as under:-"The language of clause 14(4)(c) of the Model Standing Orders is not mandatory. In any case, non compliance therewith cannot be held to be more vitiating factor than non supply of enquiry report. If the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in cases of non supply of enquiry report directs the procedure to be adopted by allowing the employers to restart the enquiry from the stage of supply of enquiry report without reinstating the employee, why such a course should not be directed to be adopted where the other grievance of the employee is denial of opportunity to show cause against proposed penalty? When the court can direct a fresh enquiry from the stage of supply of enquiry report the next step in the enquiry of giving opportunity against the proposed penalty can also be directed to be taken. After the fresh enquiry is over from the stage of supply of enquiry report, the employee can be granted opportunity against proposed penalty in terms of clause 14(4)(c) of the Model Standing Orders. Consequential order, if any passed, shall abide the final result of the proceedings. As held in the case of B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 if the employee is cleared of the charges and is reinstated, the disciplinary authority would be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the period of reinstatement and the consequential benefits."25. For the foregoing reasons, the order of dismissal dated 18.4.2002 passed by opposite party no. 2 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law from the stage of issuing of chargesheet to the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, the order of dismissal dated 18.4.2002 passed by opposite party no. 2 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law from the stage of issuing of chargesheet to the petitioner. It is further provided that petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order shall submit his representation to the disciplinary authority requesting therein that the documents and material which were the basis of imposing the charges on petitioner as mentioned in the chargesheet, the same shall be given to him and after receiving the same, the petitioner shall submit a fresh reply within a further period of two weeks thereafter. The enquiry proceedings shall be conducted and final decision shall be taken in the matter in question by the disciplinary authority expeditiously thereafter. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service by the opposite parties during the intervening period but he is not entitled for any back wages.26. With the above said observations, the writ petition is allowed.27. No order as to costs._____________