JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J. Heard Sri Amit Chandra , learned counsel for the petitioner , learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23.4.2012 ( Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.3/ Additional District Magistrate, Gonda by which punishment as mentioned therein has been awarded. 3. Facts, in brief , of the present case are that initially petitioner was appointed as Collection Amin on regular basis. By order dated 3.10.2011 a special adverse entry with reprimand has been awarded to the petitioner . Thereafter , he placed under suspension by means of order dated 18.10.2012 and a chargesheet dated 16.11.2011 has been served on the petitioner , who after receiving the same , petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.12.2011 requesting the authority concerned to provide documents/ evidence. However without getting evidence/ documents, he submitted his reply to the chargesheet on 12.1.2012. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.3.2012 to which he submitted a reply on 12.4.2012 . 4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner was Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Rajsva Sangrah Amin Sangh, Gonda, he raised certain grievance of the members of the Union to which competent authority became personally annoyed , so for redressal of his grievance, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 230(SS) of 2005 (Uttar Pradesh Rajasva Sangrah Amin Sangh district Gonda Vs. State of U.P. and others) in which an order was passed on 12.1.2005 that till the next date of listing no coercive action shall be taken against the member of the petitioner. 5. In view of the above said background, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order dated 23.4.2012 has been passed by opposite party no.3 . 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no date time and place was fixed for conducting the inquiry proceeding and straightaway on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner to the chargesheet, the inquiry officer has submitted his report to the competent authority who passed the impugned order dated 23.4.2012 hence the same is arbitrary in nature , contrary to law as well as principles of natural justice. 7. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of material available on record (counter affidavit) as well as the record of the case which has been summoned by this Court and after perusing the same he does not dispute the above said position. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record as well as the record of the case produce by learned State Counsel , admitted position which emerge out in the instant matter that the inquiry office did not fix any date time and place for holding the departmental inquiry , thus as per the said facts as well as the 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. 9. In the case of State of U.P. V. Shatrughan Lal and another, reported in (1986) 6 SCC 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. 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." 10. In the case of State of U.P. and otehrs Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha AIR 2010 SC 3131 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - "Where the charged government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding in spite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the inquiry officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the inquiry office shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged government servant. Apart from the above , by virtue of Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate the punishment being imposed on the employee. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with the closed mind. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with the closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal / removal from service." Needless to mention herein that in the case of Canara Bank and others Vs. Debasis Ds and others (2003)4 Supreme Court Cases, 557, 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. 11. 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. 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." 12. In view of the said facts, impugned order dated 23.4.2012 ( Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.3/ Additional District Magistrate, Gonda liable to be set aside 13. For the forgoing reasons,the impugned order dated 23.4.2012 ( Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.3/ Additional District Magistrate, Gonda is set aside and the matter is remanded back to opposite party no.3 to decide a fresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the stage of submitting of chargesheet and pass appropriate orders in the matter in question expeditiously within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. 14. With the above observations, writ petition is allowed.