Anil Kumar,J.:— Heard Km. Ranjana Agnihotri, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri R.K.Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos.1 and 2 and perused the record. Facts in brief as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner was working on the post of Secretary, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Uncchgaon Vikaskhand Sumerpur, Unnao, a charge sheet has been served him to which he submitted his reply on 19.03.1997, thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the enquiry officer without conducting the fact finding enquiry straightway submitted the enquiry report to the punishing authority who issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 19.12.1997 to which he submitted his reply, thereafter the impugned order of dismissal dated 24.2.1998 has been passed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, dismissed by order dated 25.5.2002 (Annexure No.2) by the appellate authority. Hence the present writ petition has been filed for redressal of his grievances thereby challenging dismissal order dated 24.2.1998 as well as appellate order dated 25.5.2002. Shri R. K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent on the basis of records produced by him does not dispute the fact that in the present case no date and time has been fixed by the enquiry officer to conduct the domestic enquiry and on the basis of reply to the charge sheet submitted by the petitioner, enquiry officer submitted his report, thereafter the punishing authority issued a show cause notice, passed the dismissal order dated 24.2.1998 which was confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 25.5.2002. In view of the abovesaid facts, admitted position rather which is admitted by the learned counsel for parties is that in the present case no fact finding enquiry has been done. In view of the above said facts, it is clear that no date, time and place for conducting inquiry has been fixed. 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. 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. 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". 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. 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." 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 he charges are to be proved by the department concerned, on the basis of the evidence 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." In the present case, neither inquiry was held nor any evidence was led and the 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 under challenge is in contravention to the principle of natural justice and cannot sustain. Needless to mention herein that in the case of Canara Bank and others Vs. As such the order under challenge is in contravention to the principle of natural justice and cannot sustain. 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 an invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left upon. All that is done is to vacate the order assailed by virtue of its inherent defect, but the proceedings are not terminated. 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." For the foregoing reasons the order of dismissal dated 24.2.1998 and appellate order dated 25.5.2002 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to proceed a fresh in accordance with law and pass the final order expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order as far as the payment of back wages and other benefits are concerned, the same is subject to the final decision taken by the punishing authority. With the above observations, writ petition is allowed. _____________