JUDGMENT B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who was appointed as Light Vehicle Driver (in short L.V. Driver) in IDCO Organization has filed this application praying for the following reliefs: “(i) Quash the impugned order of punishment of dismissal under Annexure-7 and the order of rejection of appeal of the petitioner under Annexure-9 by concurrently holding them as not only bad, illegal and violative of the provisions of Regulations, 1996 but also violative of the mandatory principles of natural justice and thereby. (ii) Direct/order/command that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential service and monetary benefits. (iii) Pass such other orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the bonafide interest of justice and fair play.” 2. The short facts of the case in hand are that the petitioner, who was appointed as an L.V. driver in IDCO, was posted at Angul Division and thereafter transferred to Jeypore U.C. Project in the year 1989 and continued there up to 1989. Thereafter, he was transferred to Rourkela where he continued from 1989 to 1991. Then he was posted at Badmal, Bolangir wherefrom he was transferred to Bhubaneswar and continued at Mechanical Division, Bhubaneswar up to 1998. From 1999 to 2000 he was posted at Cuttack and from 2000 to 2001 at Bhubaneswar. By order dated 15.10.2001 of the General Manager (P & A), he was transferred and posted at Bolangir Division, Bolangir. Prior to his transfer to Bolangir the petitioner had submitted a representation praying for consideration of his case to retain him at Bhubaneswar on the ground of his acute family problems. While he was in such distress condition, a set of charges was framed against him and communicated to him on 29.05.2000 by opposite party no.2, vide Annexure-1 with the following allegations: (1) Gross negligence in duty and disobedience of orders of the higher authority. (2) Misconduct. (3) Showing willful in sub-ordination to the superior controlling officers. (4) Proved misbehavior to superior officers, colleagues and staff of the Corporation. (5) Submission of false vouchers with an intention to misappropriate Corporation funds causing wrongful loss to the Corporation and wrongful gain to him. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation to the aforesaid charges within a fort-night and he submitted a detailed explanation on 12.06.2000 pleading the allegations as untrue. (5) Submission of false vouchers with an intention to misappropriate Corporation funds causing wrongful loss to the Corporation and wrongful gain to him. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation to the aforesaid charges within a fort-night and he submitted a detailed explanation on 12.06.2000 pleading the allegations as untrue. But, without considering his explanation in its proper perspective an inquiry was directed by appointing an Enquiry Officer Mr. S.K. Mohapatra, G.M. (Civil & MR), who conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 03.01.2003 without following due procedures of law, more particularly, OIIDC Employees’ Conduct, Discipline, Appeal and Service Regulations, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Regulations). On consideration of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority awarded major penalty and proposed to terminate him from service and consequentially vide letter dated 28.02.2003 the disciplinary authority furnished a copy of the enquiry report dated 03.01.2003 to the petitioner vide Annexure-3 calling upon him to submit his representation within a period of seven days as against the proposed penalty. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his representation on 11.03.2003, vide Annexure-4, indicating specifically that the stage of imposition of major penalty had not reached as he was not supplied copies of the documents forming the basis of charges against him and also a copy of the enquiry report and that a unilateral decision was taken by the disciplinary authority to award the proposed punishment. Vide letter dated 01.05.2003 of the Joint Manager (P & A), the petitioner was supplied copies of certain documents and he was called upon to submit his representation against the proposed penalty vide Annexure-6. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his representation on 17.05.2003 vide Annexure-6 requesting the Disciplinary Authority to direct a de novo enquiry by appointing another independent Enquiry Officer so as to enable him to defend himself properly in the said de novo enquiry as the enquiry conducted by Mr. S.K. Mohapatra was not fair and he was denied minimum valuable opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses. Without considering the representation dated 17.05.2003, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 10.09.2003 vide Annexure-7 imposing a major penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service as L.V. Driver from the Corporation with immediate effect which was communicated to him on 15.09.2003. Without considering the representation dated 17.05.2003, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 10.09.2003 vide Annexure-7 imposing a major penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service as L.V. Driver from the Corporation with immediate effect which was communicated to him on 15.09.2003. Challenging the said order of imposition of major penalty dismissing him from service, the petitioner preferred appeal on 27.10.2003, vide Annexure-8, to the appellate authority justifying the baselessness and impropriety of the impugned order of punishment. He stated that such imposition of penalty was not only motivated but also malafide. But, the appellate authority without considering the same, vide order dated 15.01.2004 rejected the appeal, vide Annexure-9, by a bald unspeaking one lined order without giving him a reasonable opportunity of hearing on merit. Hence this writ application. 3. Mr. B.S. Tripath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the service conditions of the petitioner were regulated as per the provisions contained in the 1996 Regulations. Regulation 25 states as to Penalties and penalties have been classified in two groups (i) Minor Penalties as per Clause (a) to Clause (f) and (ii) Major Penalties as per Clause (g) to (i). Regulation-26 deals with disciplinary authority whereas Regulation-27 deals with procedure for imposing major penalties. It is stated that while imposing major penalties the provision contained in Sub-Regulation (vii) read with Sub-Clause-(b) (c) of Clause-X of Regulation-27 have not been followed. At the same time, referring to Regulation-28 (i) it is stated that the Disciplinary Authority if it is not itself the Enquiring Officer, shall consider the records of the enquiry and record its findings on each charge. The same having been not done, the major penalties imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is vitiated in as much as the consequential order passed by the appellate authority also cannot be sustained. In addition to that it is also urged that there was violation of principles of natural justice in not giving the opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the departmental witnesses and not supplying copy of the enquiry report. Therefore, the order of imposition of penalty is vitiated in law and the petitioner is entitled to re-instatement in service with all consequential service benefits admissible to him. Therefore, the order of imposition of penalty is vitiated in law and the petitioner is entitled to re-instatement in service with all consequential service benefits admissible to him. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in the cases of State Bank of India vs. D.C. Agrawal, AIR 1993 SC 1197 , State of Uttaranchal vs. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 , A.N. Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465 , Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar & Others, AIR 1994 SC 1074 , Md. Yusuf vs. State of U.P. (2010) 10 SCC 539 and Shiv Nandan vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 11 SCC 626 . 4. Mr. Abhijit Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite parties strenuously urged that the petitioner joined the Corporation as a Driver on NMR basis on 06.05.1985 in the scale of pay 255-360 vide letter dated 14.10.1985. During his incumbency at Badmal Division he committed misconduct for which a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on 04.09.1992 and penalty was imposed on him stopping his two annual increments with cumulative effect vide Annexure-A which was communicated to him on 19.04.1997, vide Annexure-B. Another disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner for alleged gross negligence in duty, disobedience of orders of higher authority, misconduct, showing wilful insubordination to the superior controlling officers, misbehavior to superior officers, colleagues and staff of the Corporation, and submission of false vouchers with an intention to misappropriate Corporation funds causing wrongful loss to the Corporation and wrongful gain to him to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 12.06.2000 denying the allegations. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges pursuant to which the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 03.01.2003. It is urged that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated in consonance with the 1996 Regulations and as such the enquiry was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend his case and therefore the impugned order of dismissal cannot be called in question. This Court therefore may not interfere with the said order. Consequential confirmation order made by the appellate authority is also well justified. It is also stated that while the enquiry proceeding was continuing the petitioner signed on the statements of the witnesses vide Annexure-C series and at that time he could have cross-examined the witnesses. This Court therefore may not interfere with the said order. Consequential confirmation order made by the appellate authority is also well justified. It is also stated that while the enquiry proceeding was continuing the petitioner signed on the statements of the witnesses vide Annexure-C series and at that time he could have cross-examined the witnesses. Having not done so, he cannot assail the same on the ground of non-compliance with principles of natural justice. In order to substantiate his submission Mr. A. Pattnaik relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. R.P. Singh, Civil Appeal No. 6717 of 2008, dated 22.05.2014. 5. From the above contention of the parties, the following questions arise for consideration: (i) Whether the proceeding initiated against the petitioner was violative of any of the provision of the 1996 Regulations and there was non-compliance with the principles of natural justice? (ii) Whether the order of imposing major penalty and confirmation thereof by the appellate authority can be sustained? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get reinstatement in service with full service benefits? 6. As it appears, the 1996 Regulations are to regulate the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation. Chapter-II vide Regulation-4 states about conduct and discipline; whereas Regulation-5 states about the misconduct enumerated in detail in Sub-clauses (a) to (x) in addition to other provisions mentioned in the said Chapter such as Regulation-6 to 21. Regulation-22 deals with suspension and Regulation-23 states about the subsistence allowance. Regulation 24 stipulates how to treat the period of suspension. Regulation-25 deals with penalties being classified into two categories, namely, Minor Penalties and Major Penalties. Minor penalties have been prescribed in Clauses (a) to (f) and Major penalties are explained in Clauses (g) to (i). Procedure for imposing major penalties has been envisaged under Regulation-27. 7. In view of the provisions contained in Regulation-26 as also the provisions of Regulation-27, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same were grossly violated in the instant case inasmuch as while conducting enquiry against the petitioner. Procedure for imposing major penalties has been envisaged under Regulation-27. 7. In view of the provisions contained in Regulation-26 as also the provisions of Regulation-27, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same were grossly violated in the instant case inasmuch as while conducting enquiry against the petitioner. As it appears from Clause (viii) of Regulation-27, the Enquiry Officer shall in the course of the enquiry, consider such documentary evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges and accordingly the employee entitled to cross-examine the witnesses in support of the charges and to give evidence in person. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to cross-examine the employee and the witnesses examined in his/her defence. The Enquiry Officer may decline to examine any witness, if he considers that his/her evidence is not relevant to the issue; in which case, the reasons shall be recorded in writing. It is stated that while conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer kept certain documents with him and did not supply copies thereof to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to deny or controvert the same and submitted the enquiry report proposing major penalty of dismissal from service. It is further stated that was violation of Sub-clause (b) and (c) of Clause-(X) of Regulation-27 which states that after conclusion of the enquiry, a report shall be prepared by the Enquiry Officer which shall contain a gist of defence of the employee in respect of each article of charge and an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge. As a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner there was no occasion on his part to raise objection at the initial stage and subsequently, while proposing to impose a major penalty by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-3 dated 28.02.2003 a copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner calling upon him for his explanation within a period of seven days. Therefore, the enquiry report having been supplied after conduct of the enquiry and the same having been supplied only at the time of proposing punishment, that itself amounted to violation of natural justice inasmuch as and an empty formality. Therefore, the enquiry report having been supplied after conduct of the enquiry and the same having been supplied only at the time of proposing punishment, that itself amounted to violation of natural justice inasmuch as and an empty formality. Even while the Disciplinary Authority, who is not an enquiry officer has not acted in consonance with the provision contained in Regulation-28 of Regulation 1996 inasmuch as in Clause (i) of Regulation-28 the Disciplinary Authority, if not itself the enquiry officer, shall consider the records of enquiry and record its findings on each charge. As it appears, admittedly in the instant case, the enquiry was conducted by an Enquiry Officer, who was not the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, while considering the enquiry report duty was cast on the Disciplinary Authority to consider the records of enquiry and record its finding of each charge. No such finding having been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority on each charge against the delinquent employee, the enquiry proceeding was conducted in gross violation of the provisions contained in Clause (i) of Regulation-28 of the 1996 Regulations. This having amounted to a perfunctory enquiry on that basis a major penalty like termination of service could not have been imposed on the petitioner. 8. On perusal of the enquiry report, it appears that the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry proceeding in a manner contrary to the provisions contained in the 1996 Regulations as in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In addition to that, the enquiry was conducted beyond the scope of the charges framed against the petitioner. On scrutiny of the charges framed against the petitioner and the finding thereon, it is conclusive that the Enquiry Officer travelled beyond the scope of enquiry and where no charge was framed he over zealously offered uncalled for finding. Besides, the Enquiry Officer appears to have proposed imposition of a major penalty without recording any independent finding on the allegation but on the plea that the activities of the petitioner with regard to misbehavior amounted to gross misconduct which could not be tolerated in the greater interest of the Corporation. Accordingly, he should be awarded major penalty which would strenuously deter other employees of the Corporation from committing similar acts of misconduct. The recommendation were in the better interest of smooth functioning of the Corporation in future. Accordingly, he should be awarded major penalty which would strenuously deter other employees of the Corporation from committing similar acts of misconduct. The recommendation were in the better interest of smooth functioning of the Corporation in future. It is further urged that while arriving at such conclusion, copies of the documents on which the Enquiry Officer based, were neither supplied to the petitioner nor was he allowed to cross-examine any witness, thereby grossly violating the principles of natural justice. In addition to the same the Enquiry Officer, where, it is not the Disciplinary Authority, shall forward to the Disciplinary Authority the records of enquiry which shall include (a) the report of the enquiry prepared by it under Sub-Regulation (x), (b) the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the employee, (c) the documentary evidence produced in course of the enquiry and (d) the orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiring Authority in regard to the enquiry. There is non-compliance with such provision by the Enquiry Officer while submitting the record to the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the enquiry was vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. No materials have been produced by the opposite parties to dislodge the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the records of the disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible that the enquiry was conducted contrary to the 1996 Regulations due to non-affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby there was violation of principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Authority, the appellate authority and the Enquiry Authority. In State Bank of India and Others (supra), the apex Court held: “But non-supply of CVC recommendation which was prepared behind the back of respondent without his participation, and one does not know on what material which was not only sent to the Disciplinary Authority but was examined and relied, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry. May be that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded its own findings and it may be coincidental that reasoning and basis of returning the finding of guilt are same as in the CVC report but it being a material obtained behind back of the respondent without his knowledge or supplying of any copy to him the High Court in our opinion did not commit any error in quashing the order.” Therefore, observance of procedural fairness in essence of the compliance of principles of natural justice. Non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceeding. 9. In State of Uttaranchal and Others (supra) the apex Court held that: (a) Disciplinary Authority to supply copy of Enquiry Report and all connected materials relied on by the Enquiry Officer to the delinquent. (b) Enquiry Officer cannot make strong recommendation for imposition of a particular punishment. (c) The appellate Authority to consider the infirmities in the enquiry pleaded by the delinquent. Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in Annexure-3 the Enquiry Officer made strong recommendation for imposition of major penalty which he could not have done. In the present context, the Enquiry Officer had not made any strong recommendation for imposition of major punishment rather he has only suggested to award major penalty by assigning reasons that the same might deter the employees of the Corporation committing such mistake which amounted to misconduct. Therefore, this Court is not in agreement with the contention raised by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Enquiry Officer made a stiff recommendation which he ought not to have done in view of judgment in State of Uttaranchal and Others (supra). 10. In A.N. Pathan case (supra) the apex Court held that: “Cross-examination is an integral part of natural justice and the statements recorded behind the back of a person where he had no opportunity to cross-examine, the same cannot be relied upon.” In the present context, the statements of the witnesses have been recorded which the petitioner has endorsed, but not being allowed to cross-examine them. The said statements have been utilized against the petitioner in the enquiry report. This clearly shows that there was gross violation of principles of natural justice. 11. The said statements have been utilized against the petitioner in the enquiry report. This clearly shows that there was gross violation of principles of natural justice. 11. In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others (supra) the apex Court held: “When the Enquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges leveled against him. That right is a part of the employee’s right to defend himself against the charges leveled against him. A denial of the enquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice.” Applying the said principle to the present context, it appears that the Disciplinary Authority having not been the Enquiry Officer ought to have acted in consonance with the provisions contained in Regulation 20(i) and the delinquent officer had a right to receive copy of the enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority arrived at his conclusion of guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. But, in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority supplied the copy of the enquiry report while proposing imposition of a major penalty i.e. dismissal from service. Therefore, the action taken by Disciplinary Authority being not in consonance with law laid down by the apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others (supra) read with Regulation 20(i) of the 1996 Regulations cannot be allowed to prevail. As it appears while conducting enquiry the past conduct of the petitioner was taken into consideration in charge No.5 for which no charge had been framed. In the event the Enquiry Officer thought of taking any past conduct into consideration, the petitioner ought to have been offered opportunity to controvert the same. That having not been taken care of, the penalty imposed on the petitioner, that too a major penalty like dismissal from service cannot stand to judicial scrutiny. 12. In Md. In the event the Enquiry Officer thought of taking any past conduct into consideration, the petitioner ought to have been offered opportunity to controvert the same. That having not been taken care of, the penalty imposed on the petitioner, that too a major penalty like dismissal from service cannot stand to judicial scrutiny. 12. In Md. Yusuf case (supra) the apex Court held as follows: “If the disciplinary authority wants to consider past conduct of the employee in imposing a punishment, the delinquent is entitled to notice thereof and generally charge-sheet should contain such an article or at least he should be informed of the same at the stage of the show-cause notice, before imposing the punishment.” Applying the said principle to the present context it appears that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority was justified in travelling beyond the scope of charges levelled against the petitioner and imposing the punishment has been done in the case. 13. In Union of India and Others (supra) the apex Court held: “The courts/tribunals would apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment. It is only if the court/tribunal finds that the furnishing of report could have made a difference to the result in the case then it should set aside the order of punishment. Where after following the said procedure the court/tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/ management to proceed with the enquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the enquiry from that stage of furnishing with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement, if ultimately ordered, should invariably left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome.” Considering the ratio decided in R.P. Yadav case (supra) whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages and other consequential relief. Reliance has been placed on Shiv Nandan case (supra) wherein it is stated that the petitioner being kept out of service illegally, he is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. 14. Reliance has been placed on Shiv Nandan case (supra) wherein it is stated that the petitioner being kept out of service illegally, he is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. 14. On perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority, it appears that the same was passed without assigning any reason. It was a bald one lined order confirming the order of Disciplinary Authority which indicates that the appellate authority did not apply his mind while in seisin over the matter. 15. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records and the law laid down by the apex Court, this Court has no hesitation to quash the order of punishment of dismissal, vide Annexure-9, the same being in violation of the 1996 Regulations read with the principles of natural justice. As consequence thereof, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with consequential service benefits admissible to him in accordance with law granting liberty to the authority to proceed with the enquiry de novo in conformity with the provisions of law by affording opportunity to the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 16. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order to cost.