JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard. 2. Brief facts of the case in a narrow compass is that the petitioner was recruited on the post of Constable in C.R.P.F. on 29th September, 1985 and was given posting at Amethi, district Sultanpur. He proceeded on 60 days annual leave from 27.11.1990 to 25.1.1991 to his village Sukhi Bajhgarh in the district of Sultanpur. Petitioner fell ill and on account of diagnosis of jaundice, he moved an application for extension of his annual leave for a period of 30 days. As the condition of the petitioner did not improve, the petitioner again sent an application alongwith medical certificate and requested for extension of leave. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was declared as deserter and a warrant of arrest was issued against him. The Station Officer, who came to his house, found the petitioner in serious ailment. As the petitioner’s condition did not improve, he was referred to District Hospital, Sultanpur, where he was advised a rest for a further period of three months. By the grace of God, the petitioner’s condition improved and he reported for duty on 20.11.1991 at his Unit but to utter surprise and shock, he was arrested and put under custody. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. By the impugned order dated 26.5.1992, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the D.I.G., Central Reserve Police Force Headquarter, New Delhi. Ultimately, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected on 12.4.1993. 3. Being dissatisfied with the order of rejection of appeal, the petitioner filed a revision before Inspector General of Police but it also met with the same fate as it was rejected on 15.10.1993. Petitioner in the sanguine hope that he will get justice somewhere did not stop at this juncture, and filed a mercy petition before the Director General, C.R.P.F., who too rejected the same vide order dated 4.7.1997 without going into the merits of the case. 4. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition assailing all the aforesaid orders. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order of dismissal was passed without considering the reply of the petitioner and looking to the serious ailment with which petitioner was suffering at the relevant time. 4. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition assailing all the aforesaid orders. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order of dismissal was passed without considering the reply of the petitioner and looking to the serious ailment with which petitioner was suffering at the relevant time. The punishing authority as well as the enquiry officer has not considered the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner during the disciplinary proceedings and disbelieved the same without verification. Moreover, while passing the order of punishment, the punishing authority on one hand has regularized the period of absence from duty of the petitioner and on the other hand for the same alleged absence, passed the impugned order of dismissal. 6. The departmental enquiry which was set up against the petitioner is violative of Rule 31 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955. As per Section 10 (M) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1947 “every member of the Force, who absents himself without leave, or without sufficient cause over stays the leave granted to him shall be punished.” The petitioner had not absented himself without sufficient cause as the petitioner was seriously ill and was under medical observation. Therefore, the department proceedings are in flagrant violation of the C.R.P.F. Rules. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it has been admitted that though the petitioner was taking treatment in O.P.D. but it is not sufficient to consider his leave extension in the absence of authentic medical documents for such long absence. The Senior Medical Officer, District Hospital under whom the petitioner was under treatment had advised rest but he failed to inform his Commandant / Company Commander as such he was treated as absent from duty w.e.f. 26.1.1991, which is a grave misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force. He always remained as an O.P.D. patient as per the fabricated medical certificates produced by the petitioner during the course of departmental enquiry. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and have also examined the material on record. 9. Fundamental requirement of law is that the doctrine of natural justice should be complied with and has, as a matter of fact, turned out to be an integral part of administrative jurisprudence. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and have also examined the material on record. 9. Fundamental requirement of law is that the doctrine of natural justice should be complied with and has, as a matter of fact, turned out to be an integral part of administrative jurisprudence. In an enquiry facts have to be proved and the person proceeded against must have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to give his own version or explanation about the evidence on which he is charged and to lead his defence. 10. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623 ; State of U. P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another, (1998) 6 SCC 651 : 1998 (3) AWC 2373 (SC) ; State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 and Radhey Kant Khare v. U. P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., the Apex Court has emphasized that a proper opportunity must be afforded to a Government at the stage of the enquiry, after the charge-sheet is supplied to the delinquent as well as at the second stage when punishment is about to be imposed on him. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Radhey Kant Khare v. U. P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., 2003 (21) LCD 610 : 2003 (1) AWC 704 (LB), held that after a charge-sheet is given to the employee an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not. Hence, a notice should be issued to him indicating him the date, time and place of the enquiry. On that date so fixed the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence. Thereafter, the employer must adduce his evidence first. The reason for this principle is that the charge-sheeted employee should not only know the charges against him but should also know the evidence against him so that he can properly reply to the same. The person who is required to answer the charge must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination, as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. 12. The person who is required to answer the charge must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination, as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. 12. By a catena of decisions it has been held that the departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The Inquiry Officer is not permitted to take into consideration any irrelevant fact. In other words, suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry, (Emphasis supplied) 13. In a recent decision, i.e., Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, 2009 (2) SCC 570 , the Apex Court while narrating the duty of the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and appellate authority, held that the material brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Ministry of Finance and another v. S. B. Ramesh, 1998 SCD 1046 and S. C. Gioratra v. United Commercial Bank and others, 1995 Supp (3) has held that if the enquiry officer did not prove the documentary evidences relied upon in the enquiry and without proving the charges levelled against the petitioner, submitted his enquiry report, it vitiates the entire proceedings due to non-observance of principle of natural justice. 15. In the instant case, on perusal of the averments made in the counter-affidavit, it comes out that no reason has been indicated as to why the medical certificate issued by the doctor was not accepted by the authorities. There is no whisper as to how the authorities came to the conclusion that the medical certificates were fabricated one. The Disciplinary Authority has neither summoned the doctor nor otherwise made an efforts to verify the genuineness of the medical certificate. Thus, the disciplinary authority has violated the principle of natural justice. No documents have been brought on record on the basis of which genuineness of the Medical Certificates produced by the petitioner were doubted. The Disciplinary Authority has neither summoned the doctor nor otherwise made an efforts to verify the genuineness of the medical certificate. Thus, the disciplinary authority has violated the principle of natural justice. No documents have been brought on record on the basis of which genuineness of the Medical Certificates produced by the petitioner were doubted. Without summoning and examining the Doctor, the conclusion of the authorities that the medical certificates are fabricated, is wholly erroneous and unjustified. 16. From the averments made in the writ petition and the supporting documents, it clearly comes out that the petitioner had requested for medical leave from time to time on the basis of medical certificates issued by the doctor of the Government hospital, under whom the petitioner was undergoing treatment at the relevant time. Moreover, when the warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, the Station Officer P.S. Jamo district Sultanpur went to the house of the petitioner alongwith independent persons of the village and found the condition of the petitioner to be very pathetic and consequently sent a report to the concerned authorities indicating the ailment of the petitioner. The villagers, who had come with the police have also certified that on account of serious ailment, the police did not execute the warrant of arrest. All these relevant materials/documents were not considered by any of the authorities. At least the report of the police officer, who had gone to execute the warrant of arrest and of independent witnesses cannot and should not be doubted. Thus, the authorities have omitted relevant materials. 17. It is well-settled that the gravity of misconduct must necessarily be measured in terms of the nature of the misconduct. It is important to mention that while passing the impugned order of dismissal, the period of absence was regularized as extraordinary leave. From it, one can easily infer that the authorities had found that the delinquent employee has been able to show cause sufficiently, his absence from duty and for this reason, his absence was converted into extraordinary leave by the appointing authority otherwise there was no necessity of regularizing the leave as it was the charge on which he has been dismissed from service. 18. 18. After having carefully examined the record pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the decisions, referred to above, I am fully satisfied that enquiry proceedings were conducted in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice as such the impugned punishment order dated 26.5.1992 suffers from serious infirmities and is liable to be quashed. The punishment was awarded in the instant case without considering all the relevant materials. As the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment order were found to be illegal, consequent orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority are also not sustainable. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 26.5.1992, 12.4.1993, 15.10.1993 and the order dated 4.7.1997 are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service and will be entitled for the consequential benefits except the back wages. However, liberty is granted to the opposite parties to conduct the enquiry afresh, if they so desire, in respect of the charges levelled against him strictly in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.