Anil Kumar,J.:— Heard Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Som Kartik holding brief of Sri L.P. Shukla, learned counsel for opposite parties. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 11.6.2001 (Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.2 and the appellate order dated 23.1.2006 ( Anexure no.2) passed by opposite party no.1. The facts, in brief , of the present case are that petitioner , who is working on the post of Assistant Lodging Officer , placed under suspension vide order dated 2.3.2001. On 3.3.2001 a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner. On 18.4.2001, enquiry officer submitted a enquiry report, on the basis of which impugned order dated 11.6.2009 ( Annexure no.1 ) has been passed by the Managing Director , U.P. Forest Corporation/ opposite party no.2 . Petitioner preferred an appeal which dismissed by order dated 23.1.2006 passed by appellate authority, hence the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the no fact finding enquiry has been done in the present case and the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report on the basis of which dismissal order has been passed by the punishing authority , confirmed in appeal , are arbitrary in nature and in contravention to principle of natural justice , liable to be set aside. Sri Som Kartit holding brief of Sri L.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the present case a chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner to which he has not submitted any reply thereafter the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 18.4.2001 and on the basis of which a show cause notice served on him but he did not submitted his reply thus the impugned order of dismissal dated 11.6.2001 has been passed by the punishing authority, confirmed by appellate authority but he does not dispute the facts that in the instant case no fact finding enquiry / domestic enquiry has been conducted by the enquiry officer after issuing the charges sheet. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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 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. 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." 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. 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." For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of dismissal dated 1.6.2011 (Anexure no.1 ) passed by opposite party no.2 and the appellate order dated 23.1.2006 passed opposite party no.1 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the punishing authority/ opposite party no.2 to consider the case of the practitioner from the stage of issuing of chargesheet, and the petitioner is directed to submit his reply within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving of this order. Thereafter , the punishing authority shall pass final order within a further period of three months . So for as the back wages and other consequential benefits are concerned, that shall be subject to out come of the orders passed by the punishing authority . With the above observations, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________