Anil Kumar, J.;— Heard Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel on behalf of O.P. Nos. 1 to 5, Sri Sachin Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 6 and perused the record. 2. With the consent of parties' counsel, writ petition is heard finally at the admission stage. 3. Facts in brief of the present case are that petitioner who is working on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Inter College known as Kisan Inter College, Lakshamn Nagar, Sharwasti has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 13.05.2011 (Anenxure No. 1) passed by O.P. No. 6 by which his services were terminated. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without fixing any date, time and place for holding inquiry, as such no opportunity whatsoever has been provided to the petitioner prior to passing of the same, so the said order is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as principles of natural justice. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed by O.P. No. 6 without application of his own mind only as per the instructions given by the District Inspector of School, Shrawasti, as such the same is ab initio void, liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent does not dispute the said facts that the impugned order has been passed without holding any inquiry. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 7. It is well settled proposition of law 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. 8. 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. 8. In the case of State of U.P. V. Shatrughan Lal and another, reported in (1986) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651, the Supreme Court observed that it is not sufficient to say that the petitioner was allowed to inspect but a date has to be fixed for inspection which should be duly communicated to the delinquent and access to the record should be permitted. In the absence of any such evidence it cannot be said that reasonable opportunity was given to the delinquent .It is also settled that in case the delinquent is not supplied the copies of the relevant documents and he is not allowed to inspect the documents he would not be in a position to give any effective reply to the charges levelled against him which deprives him of his legal and fundamental right to put his defence effectively. Holding of an enquiry in such circumstances , would be in gross violation of the principle of natural justice. 9. Similar view has been taken in the case of Avtar Singh v. State of U.P. And another, reported in 1989 (7) LCD 199, where the High Court found that the reasonable opportunity includes opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses relied in support of the charges and to lead his defence. Order passed only on charge sheet and explanation filed by the employee is not sufficient and clearly violates CCA Rules, Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as principle of natural justice. 10. This Court in Gajendra vs. Administrator, U.P. Co-operatiove Processing and Cold Storage Federation Ltd and others reported in 1991 SCD 544, set aside the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not been afforded opportunity to show cause against the charges, no oral Enquiry was conducted to substantiate the charges and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross examine the witness and produce evidence in his defence. 11. 11. In the case of Uma Shanker Yadav v. Registrar Cooperative Society reported in 1992(2) UPLBEC 349 the High Court found that it was incumbent on the enquiry officer to have sent a notice to the petitioner informing the date, time and place of enquiry so that the petitioner could produce his witnesses and cross examine the witnesses. Since this was not done, rules of natural justice have been violated. 12. In the case of Yash Pal Verma vs. M/s Hindustan Machines Tools Limited, reported in 1994 (12) LCD 594 wherein it has been held that all the relevant documents which were relied upon in support of the charges were not furnished which prejudiced the defence, as such the disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner were vitiated and the impugned orders are illegal and liable to be quashed. 13. 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". 14. A division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541 observed that after service of the charge-sheet evidence has to be led and opportunity has to be given to the employee to cross-examine the witnesses. 14. A division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541 observed that after service of the charge-sheet evidence has to be led and opportunity has to be given to the employee to cross-examine the witnesses. The relevant observations are as follows; "In our opinion after the petitioner replied to the charge-sheet a date should have been fixed for the enquiry and the petitioner should have been intimated the date, time and place of the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should have been led in his presence and he should have been given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses against him and also he should have been given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner in response to this intimation had failed to appear for the enquiry then an ex parte enquiry should have been held but the petitioner's services should have not been terminated without holding an enquiry. In the present case it appears that no regular enquiry was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge sheet,he was given a show cause notice and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. In our opinion, this was not the correct legal procedure and there was violation of the rules of natural justice. Since no date for enquiry was fixed nor any enquiry held in which evidence was led in our opinion the impugned order is clearly violative of natural justice." 15. In the case of Om Pal Singh vs. District Development Officer Ghazziabad and others, reported in ( 2000) 2 UPLBEC 1591 this Court held that after service of charge sheet and submission of reply no date was fixed for evidence or for examination of witnesses which clearly shows that the principle of natural justice were violated. Thus the entire enquiry proceedings and the order of dismissal were bad and liable to be quashed including the order of dismissal. 16. In Hulashi Ram Sagar vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2002 ESC , 497, a Division Bench of this Court also set aside the order of punishment on the ground that it had been passed only after obtaining the reply to the charges, without holding any regular enquiry. 17. In the case of R.P. Srivastava Vs. 16. In Hulashi Ram Sagar vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2002 ESC , 497, a Division Bench of this Court also set aside the order of punishment on the ground that it had been passed only after obtaining the reply to the charges, without holding any regular enquiry. 17. In the case of R.P. Srivastava Vs. Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation and others , (2009) 1 UPLBEC 643 this Court has held ( relevant paragraphs 13,14,18 and 19 are quoted) as under:- " 13.The other contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner now needs to be examined. It is not in dispute that in the present case only a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply. The Enquiry Officer did not fix any date for enquiry and neither was any evidence led and nor was any opportunity given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and the enquiry report indicates that the Enquiry Officer also personally visited the firm which had issued the cash memo and perused the carbon copy of the cash memo and concluded that some interpolations had been made in the original cash memo. However, the petitioner was not confronted with the duplicate copy of the cash memo. There is nothing on the record to indicate whether the corrections were made in the cash memo by the petitioner or by the firm which issued th cash memo and only an inference has been drawn by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was responsible for the interpolations made in the cash memo. 14.This Court in Gagendra V. Administrator, U.P. Co- operative Processing and Cold Storage Federation Ltd. And others , reported in 1991 SCD 544, set aside the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not been afforded reasonable opportunity to show cause against the charges, no oral Enquiry was conducted to substantiate the charges and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witness and produce evidence in his defence. 18. In the present case also no evidence was led and nor were the witnesses examined and only on the basis of the reply field by the petitioner , the punishment of dismissal has been imposed upon him. 18. In the present case also no evidence was led and nor were the witnesses examined and only on the basis of the reply field by the petitioner , the punishment of dismissal has been imposed upon him. This apart, as noticed above, the petitioner was not even confronted with the duplicate copy of the cash memo which had been referred to in the enquiry report. 19. In view of the aforesaid , the order of punishment cannot be sustained as it has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. It is , therefore, not necessary to examine the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate the charges levelled against him." 18. In the case of State of Uttaranchal and others Vs. Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court had laid down the following principles as to how the enquiry is to be conducted :- "(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the enquiry officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the enquiry officer, during the enquiry , steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (iii) in an enquiry , the employer/ department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he want to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/ punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any." 19. In the case of Gyan Das Sharma Vs. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/ punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any." 19. 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." 20. 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 charge-sheet 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 he 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." 21. Needless to mention herein that in the case of Canara Bank and others Vs. 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." 21. 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. 22. 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 . 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." 23. For the foregoing reasons, the order of termination dated 13.05.2011 passed by opposite party no. 6 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the O.P. No. 6/competent authority to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 24. With the above said observations, the writ petition is allowed. _____________