JUDGMENT By Court-Steel Authority of India (SAIL) has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 16.11.2011 passed in W.P (S) No.3899/2007 allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent and quashing the order dated 8.3.2007 passed by the Chairman, SAIL. 2. The respondent, Bhimendra Kumar Kashap, Pl.No.956 joined RDCIS, SAIL, on 9.11.1982 as a Senior Draftsman Assistant in S-5 Grade disclosing his marital status as unmarried at the time of joining. One Ms. Geeta Devi, daughter of Muneshwar Sahu, Village and Post – Torpa, sent a letter stating that she was married to the respondent on 16.7.1983 and she had submitted a photocopy of marriage invitation card and a pair photo as proof of marriage. On such complaint, a memo dated 7.5.1987 was issued to the respondent asking his marital status. The respondent, vide letter dated 11.5.1987, stated that he was still unmarried as on 11.5.1987. 3. The said Ms.Geeta Devi again sent a letter dated 15.4.1993 along with a copy of the judgment passed by the 1st Judicial Magistrate, Class, Khunti, in Misc. Case No.M4/1987, wherein it was declared that the marriage of Ms.Geeta Devi to the respondent was solemnized on 16.7.1983 and that she was the legal married wife of the respondent and the respondent was directed to pay Rs.225/-p.m. as maintenance to Ms. Geeta Devi from 29.6.1987 to 25.4.1991. In the said case, the court further directed RDCIS, SAIL, vide order dated August, 1994, to deduct the maintenance amount from the salary of the respondent and deposit the same in the court. 4. Based on the above, chargsheet, containing the following charges, was issued to the respondent on 10.10.1994 as per Clause 5.0(4) of SAIL CDA Rules for furnishing false information regarding the matter:- “(i) Clause 31(xiii) giving false information regarding wife’s particulars for the purpose of employment or concealing any fact about any previous employment, age and other particulars in this respect. (ii) Clause 31(xxiii) contracting another marriage while his wife is still alive.” An Enquiry Committee was constituted, vide office order dated 15.5.1996. The respondent, vide letter dated 3.4.1996, informed the SAIL that he has filed Title Suit No.152/1994 in the court of Munsif at Ranchi and requested the authorities to keep the disciplinary proceeding pending till the decision of the civil court. On 11.5.2000, the Munsif Court, Ranchi, dismissed the title suit. 5. The respondent, vide letter dated 3.4.1996, informed the SAIL that he has filed Title Suit No.152/1994 in the court of Munsif at Ranchi and requested the authorities to keep the disciplinary proceeding pending till the decision of the civil court. On 11.5.2000, the Munsif Court, Ranchi, dismissed the title suit. 5. After the judgment of the civil court, chargesheet was served on the respondent on 18.6.2002 for committing misconduct as per the Standing Order of RDCIS, SAIL, Ranchi. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report on 7.4.2003, holding the respondent guilty and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment by placing the respondent at the lowest stage of the next lower grade from S8 to S7. Earlier the respondent filed W.P (S) No.5716/2003, in which the High Court directed the Chairman, SAIL, to dispose of the appeal filed by the respondent within one month. The appellate authority ordered that show cause be issued to the respondent as to why he should not be dismissed from service of the company in view of the gravity of the misconduct committed by him. Second show cause was issued to the respondent on 4.12.2006 and the appellate authority passed the final order dated 8.3.2007 rejecting the appeal and confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, i.e. placing the respondent at the lowest stage of the next lower grade S8 to S7. 6. Challenging the punishment, respondent filed W.P(S) No.3899/2007. Pointing out that while holding enquiry, the appellant-management had not adhered to Rules 11 to 14 of the procedure for imposing major penalties of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and that authors of the two documents had not been examined and no opportunity was given to the respondent to cross-examine the witness, learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order of imposition of punishment of reduction in rank from S8 to S7 at the lowest stage of lower grade S7. However, liberty was given to the appellant to enquire the matter afresh. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed this L.P.A. 7. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the appellant-SAIL has submitted that adequate opportunities were given to the respondent to defend his case before the Inquiry Officer, but the respondent did not have much to say before the Inquiry Officer. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed this L.P.A. 7. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the appellant-SAIL has submitted that adequate opportunities were given to the respondent to defend his case before the Inquiry Officer, but the respondent did not have much to say before the Inquiry Officer. While so, the learned Single Judge was not right in saying that no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that even though the notices were sent to the respondent to present himself before the Inquiry Officer on five dates, the respondent appeared before the Inquiry Officer only for two dates i.e. 18.1.2003 and 28.1.2003. It was further submitted that in view of the judicial pronouncement passed by the Munsif court in Title Suit No.152 of 1994, declaring that the marriage of Geeta Devi with the respondent is legal and in view of the judgment passed in Misc. Case No.M4/87 and the respondent having lost in First Appeal also, it was not necessary to produce the evidence in the inquiry proceeding as the judicial proceeding was already produced and marked Exhibit in the inquiry proceeding. The learned counsel submitted that since the respondent has already lost in the judicial proceeding, the Inquiry Officer has mainly relied upon the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Khunti in Misc. Case No.M4/87 dated 17.6.1992 and also the judgment passed by the learned Munsif in Title Suit No.152 of 1994 dated 11.5.2000, now he cannot contend that any prejudice has been caused to him, since the finding of bigamy was arrived at in the inquiry proceeding was based only on the judicial pronouncement and that the respondent has not shown any prejudice caused to him, since the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved mainly on the basis of the above judicial pronouncements. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that for imposing major punishment, the Management has to follow the procedure under Rule 24 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 and since the mandatory provisions were not followed and no sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent, the learned Single Judge rightly quashed the order imposing punishment on him on the ground of violation of principal of natural justice and thus the order of the learned Single Judge is a reasoned one and the same cannot be interfered with. 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman. 10. Rule 25.0 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties. As per Rule 25.0(1), no order imposing any of the major penalties specified in Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of Rule 23 shall be made except after an inquiry is held in accordance with this rule. In this case, for the proved charges, the respondent was imposed major penalty of reduction in rank at the lowest stage of the next lower grade i.e. S8 to S7. Since, major punishment was imposed upon the respondent, the Management was required to follow the procedures for imposing major penalty, as contemplated in Rule 25.0. Rule 25.0(3) stipulates where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the disciplinary authority is to frame definite charges on the basis of the imputations of misconduct and also to communicate the charges together with a statement of imputation of misconduct and a list of documents relied upon by the Management in writing to the employee. Rule 25.0(3) of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. reads as under : “ 25.0 Procedure for imposing major penalties:- xx xx xx (3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the disciplinary authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour against the employee. Rule 25.0(3) of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. reads as under : “ 25.0 Procedure for imposing major penalties:- xx xx xx (3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the disciplinary authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour against the employee. The charges, together with a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which they are based, a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained, shall be communicated in writing to the employee, who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the disciplinary authority (not exceeding 15 days), a written statement whether he admits or denies any of or all the articles of charge.” 11. By perusal of the report of the Inquiry Officer, it is seen that the Inquiry Officer has recorded finding that the respondent was asked to present himself for inquiry on 29.11.2002, 21.12.2002, 18.1.2003, 28.1.2003 and 3.3.2003. However, the respondent appeared before the Inquiry committee only on 18.1.2003 and 28.1.2003. In para-3 of the proceeding, the Inquiry Officer has stated “Shri B.K.Kashyap was given to understand that the charges levelled against him has been detailed in the memorandum and he was given opportunity to defend his case.” 12. In terms of Rule 25.0(3), when there is a mandatory requirement that the charges and also the list of documents by which the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained, shall be communicated in writing to the employee, in the report of the Inquiry Officer, there is nothing to indicate that the articles of charges and the total documents were communicated to the respondent in writing. Since there is nothing to show that the documents were communicated to the respondent in writing, we are of the view that the mandatory requirement of Rule 25.0(3) was not complied with. 13. Since there is nothing to show that the documents were communicated to the respondent in writing, we are of the view that the mandatory requirement of Rule 25.0(3) was not complied with. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Management submitted that the finding of the Inquiry Officer mainly based on the judgment passed in Misc.Case No.M4/87 dated 17.6.1992, awarding maintenance cost in favour of Geeta Devi from 29.6.1987 to 25.4.1991 and also the judgment passed in Title Suit No.153 of 1994 dated 11.5.2000, and the respondent himself being a party to those proceedings, it was not necessitated to furnish copies of such documents to the respondent. 14. The above contention does not merit acceptance. By perusal of the grounds of appeal, which the respondent has raised before the appellate authority, it appears that the respondent stated that as against the judgment of Sub Judge-I, Ranchi in Title Suit No.153 of 1994, a Second Appeal has been preferred before the High Court being Second Appeal No.7 of 2004 and the same is stated to be pending. Had an opportunity been given to the respondent by furnishing list of documents, the respondent might have produced before the Inquiry Officer about the pendency of Second Appeal No.7 of 2004. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had also drawn our attention to Rule 25.0(11) and submitted that provisions of Rule 25.0(11) and (14) were not complied with in the inquiry proceedings. 16. Rule 25.0(11) and 25.0(14) of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1977 of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. reads as under :- “ 25.0 Procedure for imposing major penalties:- xx xx xx (11) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the employee. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined but not on a new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. Inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. xx xx xx (14) The evidence on behalf of the employee shall then be produced. Inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. xx xx xx (14) The evidence on behalf of the employee shall then be produced. The employee may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the employee shall then be examined and shall be liable to cross-examination, re-examination and examination by the inquiring authority according to the provision applicable to the witnesses for the disciplinary authority.” 17. By reading of the report of the Inquiry Officer, we find that there is nothing to show that the documents were produced and the witnesses were examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer. Likewise, there is nothing to show that an opportunity was afforded to the respondent to produce the evidence. Since the mandatory requirement of Rules 25.0(3) and (11) were not complied with, the learned Single Judge was in right in holding that the appellant while holding the inquiry had not adhered to the mandatory requirement of Rule 25.0 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and also no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. The learned Single Judge was right in holding that there was violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, we do not find any reason, warranting interference with the impugned order. 18. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly dismissed. Liberty is given to the appellant to inquire into the matter afresh from the stage of commencement of enquiry by furnishing the documents relied upon by the appellant to the respondent and afford opportunity to the respondent and proceed with the enquiry in accordance with law.