JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Nirlay Gupta, learned State Counsel and perused the record. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner who was working on the post of Collection Amin in the Revenue Department, State of U.P. on 10.11.1994 fallen ill, so not able to attend his duties. Accordingly, placed under suspension on 16.6.1994 on the ground of unauthorized absent from duty. Subsequently, the said order was revoked by order dated 28.6.1994, he was reinstated in service. 2. Thereafter again placed under suspension on 27.10.1994 and a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner but he refused to accept the same, so served on the wife/son of the petitioner and also published in a Newspaper. As the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the charge-sheet, so the Inquiry Officer on the basis of material on record concluded inquiry and submitted the inquiry report to the punishing authority, who the impugned order of removal from service has passed. 3. Aggrieved by the said fact, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, as the same was not adjudicated and decided, so approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3053 (SS) of 2005 (Baij Nath Saroj v. State of U.P. and others), disposed of by order dated 7.12.2010, on reproduction reads as under : “Heard Sri S.S.L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that against the dismissal order, appeal has been preferred by him, which is pending before the Commissioner-appellate authority, which has not been decided. 4. Accordingly, this Court feels that in the interest of justice, Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad may be directed to dispose of the appeal, on the basis of the reports submitted by the subordinate Officers, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. The writ petition is, thus, finally disposed of.” 5. Again for redressal of his grievances in the matter petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4755 (SS) of 2011 (Baij Nath Saroj v. State of U.P. and others), disposed of by order dated 9.4.2012, on reproduction reads as under : “Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of parties’ counsel, the writ petition is being heard finally. With the consent of parties’ counsel, the writ petition is being heard finally. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that vide order dated 28.2.1996 the petitioner was awarded the punishment of removal from service. Against this order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, which was pending before the opposite party No. 2. 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved had filed W.P. No. 3053 (SS) of 2005, which was disposed of finally vide order dated 7.12.2010 with direction to the opposite parties to consider and decide the pending appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law, say within a period of two months. 7. However, the opposite party No. 2 by order dated 21.1.2011 informed the opposite party No. 3 that the appeal of the petitioner stand decided vide order dated 9.2.2005 and as such there is no need to decide it again, a copy of the order dated 9.2.2005 is also on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 8. The perusal of order dated 9.2.2005 indicates that the representation dated 28.9.2004 preferred by the petitioner against the impugned punishment order dated 28.2.1996 was rejected on the ground that as per rules the period prescribed for filing representation is 90 days whereas the same has been filed after delay, therefore, it is not admissible in law. 9. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 3053 (SS) of 2005 it was specifically mentioned that no appeal was preferred. Petitioner in fact had filed writ petition challenging the same impugned punishment order of removal, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the parties’ counsel. From the record it appears that the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition has not been decided in compliance of the Court’s order dated 7.12.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 3053 (SS) of 2005. The order dated 9.2.2005 is the order passed on the representation of the petitioner whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected treating it to be time barred. 11. I am of the considered opinion that the opposite parties are duty bound to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner in compliance of the Court’s order dated 7.12.2010 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. 11. I am of the considered opinion that the opposite parties are duty bound to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner in compliance of the Court’s order dated 7.12.2010 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of finally with direction to opposite party No. 2 to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, on merit, in accordance with law, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.” In pursuance to the said order, the appellate authority has passed the order dated 24.7.2012 (Annexure 1) dismissing petitioner’s appeal, relevant portion of the said order is quoted as under : ÞvihydrkZ dks iwjk volj nsus ds ckn gh muds }kjk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa dksbZ mŸkj ugha fn;k x;k vkSj og yEcs le; rd vuqifLFkr jgs] ftlds dkju vihydrkZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 28-2-1996 ds vkns'k ds }kjk vihydrkZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd djus ds ckn Hkh bu 8 o"kksZ esa vihydrkZ }kjk u rks dk;kZy; esa fdlh ls laidZ fd;k x;k vkSj u gh bruk lk{; ÁLrqr fd;k x;k] ftlls ;g fl//k gks lds fd og bu 8 o"kksZ esa ekufld :i ls bruk chekj Fkk fd og cgkyh dk Á;kl djus esa vleFkZ FkkA vr,oa bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vihy ds vk/kkj vkSfpR;iw.kZ ugha gSA mudks fdlh Hkh n'kk esa Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA rnuqlkj vihy fujLr fd tkrh gSAÞ 12. In view of the factual background, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner thereby challenging the impugned order of removal from service and appellate order dated 24.7.2013. In view of the factual background, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner thereby challenging the impugned order of removal from service and appellate order dated 24.7.2013. Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the present case, the charge-sheet has not been served on the petitioner but the same is said to be allegedly served on the petitioner’s wife/son, the said fact is totally incorrect, as the same has not been proved by examining the said person whether the charge-sheet has been served on them or not, as the said exercise has not been done in the present case, so it cannot be presumed that the charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner through the said person, in support of his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi v. Union of India and others, 1994 (2) SCC 416 . 13. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the stand taken by the opposite party that the charge-sheet has been published in the Newspaper, so it is a sufficient service of the same on the petitioner is also contrary to law as the Newspaper in which the same was published has no wide circulation in the area in which the petitioner is residing and the charge-sheet is to be published in the Newspaper which has got wide circulation, in the area in which he is residing so even if the same has been published in some Newspaper, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner has knowledge of the same or the same has been served on the petitioner as per the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and others, 1998 (7) SCC 569 , thus, in the instant case, the cahrge-sheet was not served on eh petitioner , so he was not able to submit his reply and put his defence. 14. 14. He further submits that even if the petitioner is not given any reply to the charge-sheet then in that circumstances it is mandatory on the part of Inquiry Officer to fix date, time and place for holding inquiry proceeding, which has not been done in the present case as no information has been given by the Inquiry Officer to conduct the disciplinary proceedings rather an ex-parte inquiry proceeding has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner without providing any opportunity and on the basis of which the impugned order of removal has been passed, affirmed by the appellate authority. The said exercise is contrary to law as laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another, 2012 (3) SCC 178 . 15. Lastly, it has been argued by Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for petitioner that as per the order dated 9.4.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4755 (SS) of 2011 filed by the petitioner, his appeal should be decided by the appellate authority on merit. However, the appellate authority had not considered the stand/ground taken by the petitioner in his appeal and decided the same with a predetermined mind that it has been filed after 8 years of passing of the impugned removal order, so the impugned appellate order passed by O.P. No. 2/Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad is contrary to the direction as given by this Court. 16. Accordingly, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order of removal as well as appellate order are contrary to law as well as principles of natural justice, liable to be set aside and present writ petition may be allowed. Sri Nirlay Gupta, learned State counsel while defending the impugned order submits that in the present case, after suspension, the petitioner was avoiding to accept the charge-sheet, so having no other alternative the same has been served on the petitioner’s wife/son and also published in the daily Newspaper, “Navjeevan”. Sri Nirlay Gupta, learned State counsel while defending the impugned order submits that in the present case, after suspension, the petitioner was avoiding to accept the charge-sheet, so having no other alternative the same has been served on the petitioner’s wife/son and also published in the daily Newspaper, “Navjeevan”. In spite of the said fact the petitioner has not filed any reply to the charge-sheet, so having no other alternative, the Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry proceeding and submitted inquiry report to the punishing authority and after taking into consideration the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, as per the procedure the punishing authority has passed the removal order, so the same is in accordance with law as laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Narendra Kumar Pandey, 2013 (2) SCC 740 . 17. He further on the basis of paragraph No. 5 of the appellate order submits that the appellate authority had categorically stated that the petitioner has not produced any evidence in respect to the fact that he is sick (Mansik Roop Se Bimar), and the petitioner was not able to produce any medical prescription in support of his case that he has been admitted in any hospital to get his medical treatment, so the stand taken by the petitioner that impugned appellate order is contrary to the direction as given by this Court by means of the order dated 9.4.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 4755 (SS) of 2011 is not correct as the appellate authority after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances on record has passed the said order which is perfectly valid, hence no interference is being needed in the present case and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, even if it is assumed that the case/allegation of the official respondent that the petitioner has deliberately avoiding to receive charge-sheet. Subsequently, served on wife/son of the petitioner and published in the Newspaper, so the same amounts to service on the petitioner and he has not submitted any reply, even in that circumstances a mandatory duty, is cast upon the Inquiry Officer to fix date, time and place for conducting the departmental inquiry. 19. Subsequently, served on wife/son of the petitioner and published in the Newspaper, so the same amounts to service on the petitioner and he has not submitted any reply, even in that circumstances a mandatory duty, is cast upon the Inquiry Officer to fix date, time and place for conducting the departmental inquiry. 19. The said procedure has not been done in the present case keeping the said facts and 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. 20. In the case of State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another, (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. 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 v. Shri Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, 2010(2) ADJ 10 (NOC)(LB), has held that : “In case an employee is charged of misconduct and charge-sheet is issued, it is to contain precise and specific charges alongwith the evidence which the department wants to rely upon, in proving the charge and the charges alongwith 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.” 21. Further, in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another, 2012 (3) SCC 178 , Hon’ble the Apex Court in paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18 held as under : “Para No. 16-In the case of appellant referring to unauthorised absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he failed to maintain devotion of duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a Government servant. The question whether `unauthorised absence from duty’ amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances. Para No. 17-If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. Para No. 17-If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. Para No. 18 - In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.” 22. In view of the abovesaid facts, the entire disciplinary proceeding as well as removal order and appellate order are contrary to law. 23. Further, from the perusal of the appellate order, the position which is emerged out that in a very sketchy manner, opposite party has stated the fact of the case, however, the same has been passed mainly on the ground that the petitioner has filed the appeal against the order of removal after 8 years, so the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. The said action on the part of appellate authority is contrary to the direction as given by this Court by means of order dated 9.4.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 4755 (SS) of 2011, because the impugned appellate order does not discuss and adjudicate the grounds on which the appeal has been filed by the petitioner that why the same are not tenable rather, on the point in issue is non-speaking and un-reasoned order and as per settled position of law an order/appellate order passed by an authority should be a reasoned one and the objection taken by a person should be dealt with because reasons are like a live wire which connects the mind of the decision making authority and the decision given by him and if this wire/link is broken i.e. to say no reasons are given in the impugned order then it will not be possible to know as what was going in the mind of the decision making authority on the basis of which he has come to the conclusion and passed the impugned order. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the later before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other worlds, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. The said requirement is also in accordance with the principles of natural justice as a person against whom the impugned decision is taken should know that under what circumstances the same has been taken and as in the present case, the impugned appellate order is a non-speaking order and no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the official respondent while passing the same, so the same is violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary in nature and cannot be sustained. 24. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 28.2.1996 and appellate order date 24.7.2012 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the O.P.No. 3/Collector/District Magistrate, Pratapgarh to take a fresh decision in the matter in question with a direction that the petitioner shall submit his reply to the charge-sheet within two weeks from the date of receiving certified copy of this order, thereafter, the O.P.No. 3/competent authority shall complete the disciplinary proceeding and pass final order within a further period of three months provided the petitioner shall co-operate in the inquiry proceedings. Further, the consequential benefits are arising out in the present case shall be subject to final decision taken by O.P.No. 3. 25. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. —————