JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri V.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.1.2007 whereby the District Magistrate, Deoria imposed major penalty of reduction in rank, withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and withholding of integrity and the appellate order dated 24.10.2007 rejecting his appeal, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The basic submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that various documents which he submitted in defence have been excluded or rejected only on the ground that though are official documents, but neither original nor certified copies of those documents made available, hence are inadmissible in evidence. It is contended that Evidence Act is not applicable in departmental inquiry and so long as genuinity of official documents, which are submitted by petitioner, was not doubted, the same cannot be ignored only on the ground that the same was not original or certified copy. He also drew my attention to the letter dated 7.12.2006 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Deoria whereby copies of 14 documents were supplied to petitioner and at serial No. 6 is a copy of the report of Naib Tahsildar, Barhaj dated 14.2.2006 mentioned. He submitted that the documents being official and was made available to petitioner by the respondents themselves, there was no occasion for the inquiry officer to exclude the said document merely by observing that it was not admissible in evidence and thereby prejudicing the defence of petitioner and holding charges proved against him, hence it vitiates the entire proceedings. The inquiry report was submitted by excluding the substantial defence of petitioner on all the charges which if not completely destroyed the case of the department, otherwise would have sufficiently shown that the petitioner could not be held guilty of any of the charges. The inquiry report was submitted by excluding the substantial defence of petitioner on all the charges which if not completely destroyed the case of the department, otherwise would have sufficiently shown that the petitioner could not be held guilty of any of the charges. He also submitted that spot inspection report which the petitioner obtained from another Lekhpal due to absence of concerned Lekhpal, Sri Parma Yadav being absent on that particular date has been discarded on the ground that petitioner was not competent to grant leave to a Lekhpal hence sanction of leave to Sri Parma Yadav on 11.11.2005 was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the documents, reports and orders whatever in respect to the said report of Lekhpal concerned, none can be taken into account. He referred to the averments made in para 19 of the writ petition that being his immediate boss he is superior authority and was capable to sanction casual leave and also referred to para 13 of the counter-affidavit wherein there is only a bare denial and is not stated under which provision the petitioner could not have granted such leave to his immediate subordinate officer. He submitted that the authorities, therefore, having erred in law and recorded a finding which is perverse and, therefore, the entire proceedings are in violation of principle of natural justice inasmuch as the relevance of valid defence of petitioner has been ignored. 4. Learned Standing Counsel in defence sought to refer the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of respondents and submitted that the proceedings have been conducted in accordance with law and no interference is called for. 5. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was charged of issuing residential certificate to one Km. Sandhya Kushwaha who claim to be the resident of Village Dhanauti Mathiya, Tehsil Rudrapur, District Deoria though as a matter of fact she was actually resident of Barhaj. In respect to the aforesaid transaction a charge-sheet was issued to petitioner on 14.8.2006 by the District Magistrate, Deoria. The petitioner submitted his reply to inquiry officer (Tehsildar Salempur, District Deoria) on 4.10.2006 denying all the charges. The inquiry officer did not hold any oral inquiry and on the basis of charge-sheet and the reply submitted by petitioner, submitted his report on 11.10.2006 holding all the charged proved. The petitioner submitted his reply to inquiry officer (Tehsildar Salempur, District Deoria) on 4.10.2006 denying all the charges. The inquiry officer did not hold any oral inquiry and on the basis of charge-sheet and the reply submitted by petitioner, submitted his report on 11.10.2006 holding all the charged proved. Some of the documents submitted by petitioner in his defence alongwith his reply were discarded by inquiry officer on the ground that the employee concerned has not submitted original or certified copies of those documents. A show cause notice alongwith inquiry report was issued to petitioner on 29.10.2006. The petitioner thereafter made an application dated 20.11.2006 to the respondents to give certified copies of relied on documents and some others, pursuant whereto 14 documents were made available to him alongwith letter dated 7.12.2006. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his reply on 18.12.2006. The disciplinary authority rejecting his reply passed the punishment order dated 15.1.2007 and appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur on 24.10.2007. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the report of Naib Tehsildar, Barhaj submitted on 14.2.2006 proved that Km. Sandhya Kushwaha was a resident of Barhaj. All the defence of petitioner has been ignored by inquiry officer only by observing that petitioner has not submitted original or certified copy of said documents but only a photocopy has been given. He further pointed out that the inquiry which the petitioner got conducted from Lekhpal on 11.11.2005 has been doubted on the ground that the concerned area Lekhpal was absent and despite the petitioner being not competent to sanction his leave he authorised another Lekhpal to make inspection and submit report which was unauthorised. It is contended that there is no provision which says that the petitioner was not competent to sanction leave to Lekhpal working under his jurisdiction and directly subordinate to petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to leave rules and in particular Rules 201 and 202 of Subsidiary Rules and contended that nothing has been said therein as to who will sanction casual leave and the petitioner was not competent to sanction casual leave to an immediate subordinate official. He submitted that in the counter-affidavit nothing has been said about it. 8. He submitted that in the counter-affidavit nothing has been said about it. 8. He also contended that in fact no oral inquiry whatsoever was ever conducted by inquiry officer inasmuch as the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 4.10.2006 and within a week the inquiry report was submitted without holding any oral inquiry. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and perusing the record, in my view, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. In departmental inquiry the procedure of Evidence Act is inapplicable. The procedure is basically one which is consistent with the principle of natural justice. The strict principle of Evidence Act are inapplicable in departmental inquiry. 11. The petitioner supplied copies of certain official documents and admittedly there is nothing on record to show that genuinity of those documents was ever doubted by the disciplinary authority. That being so, the contents of effect of those documents or correctness of the charges ought to have been considered by the competent authority objectively and thereafter it could have recorded its finding. But in the case in hand such documents which the petitioner submitted in his defence have been rejected only on the ground that he had failed to submit original copy or certified copy of those documents as is evidence from the following findings: ^^vkjksih us dq0 lU/;k ds xzke /kukSrh efB;k dk fuoklhuh gksus ds lEcU/k esa uk;c rglhynkj cjgt ds fjiksVZ fnukad 14-2-2006 dh Nk;k izfr dks crkSj lk{; nkf[ky fd;k gS] rks ij uk;c rglhynkj ds fjiksVZ dh u rks ;g ewy ;k izekf.kr izfr gS rFkk l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk bl uk;c rglhynkj dh vk[;k ij D;k laKku fy;k x;k\ vkjksih }kjk bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ lk{; ugha nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vkjksih }kjk nkf[ky fd;s x;s tkap fjiksVZ dh Nk;k izfr dks lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha fd;k tk ldrkA** 12. Similarly, action of the petitioner in obtaining report from another Lekhpal due to absence of Sri Parma Yadav, the concerned Lekhpal of that area, has been doubted and finding has been recorded against him only on the ground that petitioner was not competent to sanction leave, as is evident from the following: ^^vkjksih us lEcfU/kr {ks= ds ys[kiky Jh ijek ;kno ds vodk’k izkFkZuk i= fnukad 11-11-2005 dh Nk;k izfr lk{; ds :i esa nkf[ky fd;k gSA pwafd tgka ijekuUn ;kno ys[kiky ds vodk’k dh ewy ;k izekf.kr izkFkZuk i= nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gS] ogha nkf[ky fd;s x;s Nk;k izfr ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd bldh LohÑr Lo;a vkjksih }kjk fnukad 11-11-2005 dks dh x;h gS tks fd mlds {ks=kf/kdkj ds ckgj gS D;ksafd ys[kiky ds vkdfLed vodk’k dh LohÑfr dk vf/kdkj jktLo fujh{kd esa fufgr ugha gksrh gSA bl izdkj fcuk l{ke vf/kdkjh ds LohÑr fd;s x;s vkjksih }kjk nkf[ky bl vodk’k izkFkZuk i= ds Nk;k izfr dks lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha fd;k tk ldrkA** 13. Both the documents obviously were material and relevant for the purpose of defence of petitioner and their relevancy and genuinity has not been doubted but they have been ignored obviously for the reasons which are wholly illegal, impermissible and vitiates the entire finding of guilt against the petitioner, recorded by the authorities concerned. 14. Besides, it also appears from the record that no oral inquiry whatsoever was held by the respondents. This was pointed out by petitioner in his reply to show cause notice as is evident from para 6 of his reply: ^^mYys[kuh; gS fd tkap vf/kdkjh us izkFkhZ dks u rks O;fDrxr :i ls lquk] u fdlh lk{kh dks cqykdj mldk ijh{k.k fd;k] vkSj u gh izfrijh{k.k djk;k vkSj lcls fo’ks”k ckr ;g gS fd izdj.k ls lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k tkap vf/kdkjh ds ikl u gksdj vij ftykf/kdkjh egksn; ds ikl FkkA bl izdkj tkap vk[;k U;k; ds uSlfxZd fl)kUrksa dk vuqikyu fd;s cxSj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa ds foijhr dsoy 'kCn jfgr vk/kkjksa ij rS;kj dh x;h gSA ftldk dksbZ fofèkd ewY; ugha gS vkSj ,slh tkap vk[;k ds vk/kkj ij fuxZr dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl okil ysus ;ksX; gSA** 15. On this aspect of the matter the disciplinary authority has not addressed itselt and has not said anything. It is true that sometimes the charges may be such as no oral inquiry by recording oral evidence etc. On this aspect of the matter the disciplinary authority has not addressed itselt and has not said anything. It is true that sometimes the charges may be such as no oral inquiry by recording oral evidence etc. is necessary but mere issuance of charge-sheet does not mean that the charges stand proved unless in the oral inquiry the department discharge its burden to prove the charges and only thereafter question of defence on the part of delinquent employee will arise. 16. Holding of oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty as held by the Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 . 17. The question as to whether non holding of oral inquiry can vitiate the entire proceeding or not has also been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in the case of Salahuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ESC 1667 and the Court clearly held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment. This Court has said in paras 10 and 11 of the judgement as under: “10. ————— Non holding of oral inquiry in such a case is a serious matter and goes to the root of the case. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 , considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills and others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 and Laturi Singh v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 6.5.2005.” 18. In view of above discussion and the exposition of law, I have no hesitation in observing that the entire proceedings against the petitioner is in utter violation of principle of natural justice and by ignoring the relevant material placed by the petitioner in his defence. 19. In view of above discussion and the exposition of law, I have no hesitation in observing that the entire proceedings against the petitioner is in utter violation of principle of natural justice and by ignoring the relevant material placed by the petitioner in his defence. 19. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 15.1.2007 and 24.10.2007 are hereby set aside. However, it will open to the disciplinary authority to proceed further from the stage of oral inquiry and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioner, however, shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. No costs. —————