JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.S. Chauhan, J.—This writ petition has been filled, challenging the order dated 12.5.2003, by means of which petitioner has been dismissed from service from the post of Manager. 2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Secretary in Central Engineering Cooperative Society Ltd., Sultanpur on 16.4.1981 which was a Central Cooperative Society. Subsequently after creation of U.P. Cooperative Processing and Cold Storage Federation Ltd. and Framing of U.P. Co-operative Processing Units and Cold Storage Centralised Service Rules in 1981, the petitioner applied for his absorption on the post of Manager and thereafter he was absorbed on the post of Manager by means of order dated 14.8.1984. Thereafter in the meeting held on 26.6.1990 the Administrative Committee ordered to revert the petitioner to his parent post of secretary and was reverted. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in W.P. No. 10828 (S/S) of 1990 which was stayed and thereafter the respondent No. 2 withdrew the said order. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Manager/In charge Site Engineer for various construction sites of the Construction Unit Sultanpur and by means of order dated 27.3.2001 he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary inquiry. Charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 23.7.2001. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him by letter dated 8.8.2001 and thereafter he was not intimated about any date, place or time of inquiry by the Inquiry Officer Sri A.K. Srivastava before submitting inquiry report. Thereafter the petitioner was required to appear before the Administrative Committee on 28.11.2002 and he appeared on the above date before the Administrative Committee and informed that the inquiry officer had not conducted any inquiry and, therefore, his report is baseless and imaginary. By order dated 16.12.2002 the petitioner was informed that the Administrative Committee had constituted an inquiry committee of three officers including Sri A.K. Srivastava (who has already conducted the inquiry). The inquiry committee fixed 26.12.2002 as the date for holding the inquiry at Sultanpur and they visited various sites in the presence of the petitioner to verify the work which was got executed under the supervision of the petitioner. Thereafter the committee members personally interrogated various persons to whom the payments had been made. The inquiry committee fixed 26.12.2002 as the date for holding the inquiry at Sultanpur and they visited various sites in the presence of the petitioner to verify the work which was got executed under the supervision of the petitioner. Thereafter the committee members personally interrogated various persons to whom the payments had been made. The inquiry was also done on 16th,17th, and 18th January 2003. The petitioner was also required to submit a statement on oath to the effect that the work, as claimed by him, has been done and he filed the same. The committee also required the petitioner to submit certain papers including the vouchers of the diesel/fuel expenses. The petitioner submitted those papers before the committee. Thereafter the petitioner was given a telephonic message on 27.3.2003 to be present at the Headquarters at Lucknow on 28.3.2003. The petitioner shows his inability to be present on 28.1.2003 on account of his illness and therefore, he could not attend the Head Office on 28.1.2003. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 31.3.2003 along with the inquiry report submitted by Sri A.K. Srivastava requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service besides ordering for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,72,595/- from him. He was asked to submit his reply by 15.4.2003 and to be present before the Member/Secretary on 10.4.2003. The petitioner appeared before the Member/Secretary on the above dated and by means of letter dated 10.4.2003 he requested for supply of the copies of certain documents to enable him to file reply to the show cause notice. On the same day the petitioner was informed that for some unavoidable reasons the inquiry has been postponed for 17.4.2003. The petitioner again appeared before the Member/Secretary on 17.4.2003 and requested for supply of copies demanded through letter dated 10.4.2003. He also requested for supply of a copy of the inquiry report submitted by three members committee but the said inquiry report was never supplied to him. On 17.4.2003, the General Manager (Tech.) took the statement of the petitioner on various questions. He also requested for supply of a copy of the inquiry report submitted by three members committee but the said inquiry report was never supplied to him. On 17.4.2003, the General Manager (Tech.) took the statement of the petitioner on various questions. The petitioner also requested to allow him to cross examine the witnesses mentioned in his reply dated 8.8.2001 and also reiterated his demand for supply of copies of various papers mentioned in letters dated 10th and 17th April, 2003 but the petitioner was never given opportunity to examine/cross examine the witnesses nor copies of the documents mentioned in the letters dated 10th and 17th of April, 2003 were supplied to him at any stage. Thereafter dismissal order dated 30.4.2003 was passed but copy of the same has not been supplied to the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner heard that some letter had been sent to his home address (village Ranipur Kayasth, Kadipur, Sultanpur) although the petitioner was attached with the Headquarters at Lucknow and he was attending office on every working day. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 8.5.2003 stating that he had heard that some letter had been sent to his village address but no such letter was ever delivered to him and as such a copy of the same be supplied to him. In reply to the letter dated 8.5.2003, the petitioner was served with a copy of the impugned order of dismissal dated 12.5.2003 on 19.5.2003. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after filing the reply to the charge-sheet, no inquiry as contemplated under law, was held by the inquiry officer Sri A.K. Srivastava and no date, time and place was fixed and Inquiry Officer has proceeded merely on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner. The report of the inquiry committee was not supplied to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The petitioner was also not supplied the papers demanded through the letters dated 10th and 17th April 2003 so that he could not get an opportunity to submit his defence against the show cause notice and no opportunity of hearing was given by the Administrative Committee or the Member/Secretary before passing the impugned order of dismissal from service. His further submission is that impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing. 5. His further submission is that impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Kamla Charan Misra v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (27) LCD 130; Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., 2003(1) ESC 427 (All)(LB); Suresh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ESC 1714 (All)(DB)(LB) and Uma Shanker Yadav v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lucknow and others, (CM Writ Petition No. 2391 of 1990 decided on May 11, 1992). 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner did not co-operate in the inquiry hence disciplinary proceedings were drawn against him and an inquiry report was submitted on the basis of which, it was found that the charges were established against him and so they proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service. It has also been submitted that proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself but he did not cooperate in the inquiry, therefore, his services were dispensed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. From the record , it is evident that no date, time and place of the inquiry has been fixed and the Inquiry Officer had proceeded on the basis of the reply to the charge-sheet. No oral inquiry in accordance with law has been held. The petitioner who has been dismissed from service, was not given proper opportunity to adduce the evidence in defence and also to cross examine the witnesses who were deposing against the petitioner. Since no oral inquiry has been held in the present case, the said infirmity is a serious infirmity and the impugned order dated 12.5.2003 cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this Court in various decisions in this regard that it is incumbent upon the enquiry officer to fix date and inform the delinquent employee for holding the enquiry. In the case of Kamla Charan Misra (supra), this Court has held as under : “18. In the case of Kamla Charan Misra (supra), this Court has held as under : “18. In view of the settled proposition of law, since the impugned order of punishment does not disclose the material evidence on record and has been passed without assigning reasons, it is violative of principles of natural justice, hence hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that it is not necessary to assign reason does not seem to be sustainable in view of the settled provisions of law (supra). At the face of record, from the impugned order, it may not be gathered as to what were the evidence on record which had persuaded the disciplinary authority to pass the impugned order of punishment.” 9. In the case of Radhey Kant Khare (supra), this Court has held as under : “7. In a Division bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 , in which one of us (Hon’ble M. Katju, J.) was a member, this law has been laid down. The law is as follows: 8. 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 the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence vide A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ 396 (SC). Ordinarily, if the employee is examined first it is illegal vide Anand Joshi v. MSFC, 1991 LIC 1666 Bom.; S.D. Sharma v. Trade Fair Authority of India, 1985 (II) LLJ 193 ; Central Railway v. Raghubir Saran, 1983 (II) LLJ 26 . No doubt in certain exceptional cases the employee may be asked to lead evidence first, vide Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 236 , but ordinarily the rule is that first the employer must adduce his evidence. 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. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 236 , but ordinarily the rule is that first the employer must adduce his evidence. 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. Where no witnesses were examined and no exhibit or record is made but straight away the employee was asked produce his evidence and documents in support of his case it is illegal vide P.C. Tohomas v. Mutholi Co-operative Society Ltd., 1978 LIC 1428 Ker and Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 . 10. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 the Supreme Court observed “It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer the charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He 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. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled if the result of the enquiry can be accepted. 11. In S.C. Givotra v. United Commercial Bank, 1995 (Supp) (3) SCC 212 the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order which was passed without giving the employee an opportunity of cross examination. In State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158 the Supreme Court held that omission to give opportunity to an employee to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. The Court also held that in the enquiry the witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross examine those witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. In Punjab National Bank v. AIPNBE Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160 (vide paragraph 66) the Supreme Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in presence of the charge-sheeted employee and he must be given opportunity to rebut such evidence.” 10. In the case of Suresh Chandra Srivastava (supra), this Court has held as under : “10. In Punjab National Bank v. AIPNBE Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160 (vide paragraph 66) the Supreme Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in presence of the charge-sheeted employee and he must be given opportunity to rebut such evidence.” 10. In the case of Suresh Chandra Srivastava (supra), this Court has held as under : “10. From the perusal of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel (supra), it is evident that according to the law settled by Hon’ble Apex Court, it is always incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to record oral evidence with liberty to the delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses. After the evidence adduced by the Department to prove the charges, it is also necessary that the delinquent employee be given the opportunity to lead evidence in defence. In the case of Radhey Kant Khare (supra) after considering various pronouncements of Hon’ble the Apex Court and this Court, a Division Bench of this Court has held that after charge-sheet is given to an employee, oral enquiry is must. It is immaterial whether the employee makes request for it or not. Meaning thereby, whether an employee submits reply to the charge-sheet or not, or even if an employee submits reply to the charge-sheet, it is always incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to record oral evidence in the presence of the delinquent employee. In case, the charged employee is not present or does not cooperate with the enquiry proceedings, even then it is necessary for the Enquiry Officer to record the statement of the witnesses orally by proceeding ex parte.” In the case of Uma Shanker Yadav (supra), this Court has held as under : “6. The impugned order states that the enquiry report was sent by the Enquiry Officer by his letter dated 16.1.1989 which was received in the office of the Deputy Registrar on 21.1.1989. It is not clear whether this enquiry was a regular enquiry or a preliminary enquiry. Even assuming that it was a regular enquiry, it was necessary that the notice of the enquiry should have been sent to the petitioner. In my opinion, even if the accused employee does not send his reply to the charge-sheet, the Enquiry Officer is not absolved from his duty to send a notice to the accused informing him about the date, time and place of the enquiry. In my opinion, even if the accused employee does not send his reply to the charge-sheet, the Enquiry Officer is not absolved from his duty to send a notice to the accused informing him about the date, time and place of the enquiry. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition there is a clear averment that the petitioner was not informed about any date of holding of the enquiry. In paragraph 13 it is stated that without holding any enquiry, or providing any opportunity of being heard, the petitioner was dismissed. 7. It appears that the respondents were under a misconception about the law that if an accused employee does not reply to the charge-sheet then he need not be given opportunity of hearing in the enquiry. In my opinion, even if it is correct that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet, it was incumbent on the Enquiry Officer to have sent a notice to the petitioner informing him about the date, time and place of the enquiry, so that the petitioner could produce his witnesses, and cross examine the witnesses against him. Since this was not done, the Rules of natural justice have been violated.” 11. In view of the above legal position, the matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law from the stage of filing of the reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner would be reinstated formally. The petitioner will not be entitled for any arrear during the course of inquiry. This rider is being placed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of N.T.C. (DBAB & O) Ltd. v. Anjan K. Saha, (2004) 7 SCC page 581. The opposite parties will take a decision after conclusion of the inquiry in accordance with law and pass final order. The disciplinary proceedings, which will commence in pursuance of this order, will be concluded by the opposite parties within a period of five months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them and final order would be passed. 12. The writ petition is allowed and the dismissal order dated 12.5.2003 is hereby quashed subject to above observations. 13. There will be no order as to costs. ————