JUDGMENT Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the disciplinary authority on 26.7.1989 dismissing the petitioner from service on the post of Naib Tehsildar/officiating Tehsildar, coupled with the appellate order dated 29.1.2008 by which the order passed by the disciplinary authority stands upheld. 2. This is a case of peculiar nature where conclusion of disciplinary proceedings which ought to have waited for the outcome of the cause giving rise to the charge for which though proceedings initiated for cancellation of caste certificates allegedly issued in breach of law by the petitioner remain undecided but resorting to haste, it is evident, the cart was cast before the horse. 3. The facts giving rise to the controversy at hand, in brief, are that the petitioner at the relevant point of time, i.e., 1979-80 was posted as Naib Tehsildar/Officiating Tehsildar, Haraiya. District Basti and in the discharge of his official duties, caste certificates with respect to two persons, namely, Shri Chandra and Prem Chandra, both sons of Badri Prasad were issued, treating them to be belonging to Scheduled Caste category. It appears that caste certificate issued allegedly under the signatures of the petitioner became a subject-matter of complaint and later on gave rise to the proceedings for cancellation of caste certificates on the one hand against the persons concerned who had utilised them for allotment of retail petrol outlet and departmental proceedings against the petitioner on the other. 4. The record of the case summoned before this Court reveals that a notice for cancellation of the caste certificate was issued to the persons concerned viz. Shri Chandra and Prem Chandra on 18.7.1985 and the issuance of said notice on the basis of Pargana Adhikari report dated 22.3.1984 became a subject-matter of challenge. As a matter of fact, in the year 1983 and 1984 scheduled caste certificates issued to several persons belonging to 'Agariya' caste who were residents of adjoining villages situated in Faizabad and Basti became a subject-matter of dispute before this Court in Writ Petitions No. 1830 of 1983, 2107 of 1983 and 2985 of 1984 and this Court passed interim stay orders not to proceed against the affected persons. In deference of court orders, cancellation proceedings with respect to the two caste certificates issued by the petitioner being the subject-matter in Writ Petition Nos. 2107 of 1983 and 2985 of 1984 wherein Shri Chandra and Prem Chandra were also a party, were kept in abeyance. This position is evident from the order dated 19.10.1985 passed by Tehsildar, Haraiya which is kept in the original record. The writ petitions were ultimately dismissed by order dated 9.3.1989 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing a suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. The said order was assailed before the Apex Court by filing S.L.P. which too was dismissed on 31.4.1989 and in this manner regular Suit No. 159 of 1989 came to be instituted before the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faizabad at the instance of as many as 25 plaintiffs out of whom plaintiffs No. 21 and 22 are the persons who are the beneficiaries of caste certificates issued by the petitioner, namely, Shri Chandra and Prem Chandra both sons of Badri Prasad. The civil court. Faizabad at the initial stage, passed an order of status quo on 4.5.1989, which later on was confirmed in terms of order dated 2.9.1992 restraining the opposite parties to cancel the caste certificates issued in favour of the plaintiffs, which includes the caste certificates issued to aforesaid two persons, who though belonging to district Basti have joined in the civil suit filed at Faizabad in respect of the caste certificates issued by Tehsildar, Haraiya, District Basti. The interim order granted by the civil court, Faizabad has further been confirmed in Misc. Appeal No. 76 of 1995 by judgment dated 29.9.1999. The State Government does not appear to have pursued the matter further as such interim injunction granted by the civil court on 2.9.1992 is operative till date. 5. It is also noticeable that no objection as regards maintainability of suit filed by non-residents of Faizabad before the civil court, Faizabad in respect of caste certificates granted by Tehsildar, Haraiya, District Basti appears to have been raised for all these years ever since the date of institution of civil suit in the year 1989. This is a sad state of affairs and this Court takes a serious note of such a dereliction of duty on the part of the officers of the State. 6. This is a sad state of affairs and this Court takes a serious note of such a dereliction of duty on the part of the officers of the State. 6. A note of caution is also warranted for the reason that simultaneous to the proceedings for cancellation of caste certificates, the authorities have shown undue haste towards proceedings against the erring officials including the petitioner who was charge-sheeted on 8.1.1987 solely for the issuance of caste certificates in favour of two persons named above. The charge-sheet was proceeded ahead even without supply of requisite documents prayed for by the petitioner. The two reports which were relied upon in support of the charge, as per the contention of the petitioner, were also not supplied to him. The enquiry proceedings were concluded in a hasty manner and the enquiry report was finalised on 26.9.1988 based on which a show cause notice dated 26.9.1988 was issued which was replied to by the petitioner on 27.10.1988. The petitioner in his reply has duly raised a grievance against the enquiry proceedings being concluded without fixing date, time and place. The grievance as regards non-supply of relevant documents and failure to prove the evidence relied upon has also been raised therein including the procedural infirmities which crept in holding of enquiry proceedings. 7. Learned standing counsel has conceded that there have been procedural defects in holding of the departmental proceedings to the extent that date, time and place was not fixed and the documents placed reliance upon particularly the report of Pargana Adhikari dated 22.3.1984 were not proved in the enquiry proceedings. The position is sufficiently evident from the version of enquiry officer recorded in the enquiry report. 8. The enquiry report is the sole material placed reliance upon by the disciplinary authority for passing the impugned order of dismissal from service against the petitioner, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority reiterating his grievance as against the infirmities which the enquiry proceedings suffered from as well as non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority. The submissions made by the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice truly raise questions of law and fact both. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority reiterating his grievance as against the infirmities which the enquiry proceedings suffered from as well as non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority. The submissions made by the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice truly raise questions of law and fact both. All these aspects of the matter have been lost sight of by the appellate authority who has affirmed the order of punishment in ignorance of the settled procedure applicable as regards the holding of disciplinary proceedings by the departmental authorities. 9. This Court had summoned the record of the disciplinary proceedings. Having gone through the record, the basic consideration attracting attention of this Court is as to whether disciplinary proceedings could at all be initiated against the officer before the certificates allegedly issued by him were yet to be proved illegal, wrong or without authority of law. The sole charge against the petitioner is that he issued caste certificates in favour of persons who were not entitled for being issued the scheduled caste certificate. At the relevant point of time the validity of the certificates was not prescribed to be adjudged by any other authority except the issuing authority himself and until the date of passing the impugned order by the disciplinary authority, the concerned authority had simply issued a notice on the basis of Pargana Adhikari's report dated 22.3.1984 against the beneficiaries of caste certificates which notice remains yet to be proved and due to intervention of court, further action in pursuance thereof is stayed till date. 10. In respect of the proceedings initiated for cancellation of the caste certificates, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the proceedings have not moved ahead after issuance of the show-cause notice dated 18.7.1985. The record also shows that by means of order dated 19.10.1985 further action in pursuance of notice dated 18.7.1985 was deferred due to court's intervention and the matter is pending in the civil suit till date. 11. The fact, therefore, remains that the validity of the said certificates has yet not been finally determined but on the contrary, the charge arising from the issuance of the said certificates has resulted into dismissal of the petitioner from service by order dated 26.7.1989. 11. The fact, therefore, remains that the validity of the said certificates has yet not been finally determined but on the contrary, the charge arising from the issuance of the said certificates has resulted into dismissal of the petitioner from service by order dated 26.7.1989. The petitioner while pursuing the remedy against the impugned order has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.1997 and thereafter, stands deprived of his pensionary benefits. The petitioner at the age of more than 75 years is virtually starving and has no means of sustenance. On the contrary, the interim injunction passed in favour of the beneficiaries is operating and the State Government is taking no pain to ensure disposal of the civil suit at least insofar as two certificates issued by the petitioner are concerned, particularly in a suit which has been instituted apparently before the civil court, whose jurisdiction is highly doubtful with respect to the alleged two certificates. The civil proceedings with respect to the two certificates have not been pursued by the State authorities carefully at all. This again is an attitude of the State authorities which cannot be appreciated. The State cannot be allowed to be a silent spectator in respect of valuable rights of their employees. The State authorities on the one hand have allowed the persons who allegedly mislead the authorities for their narrow interest with an ulterior motive to gain out of wrong certificates but before proving the action to be wrong, the petitioner has been punished and subjected to a state of penury. 12. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the departmental proceedings being concluded in a hasty manner deserve to be intervened. The impugned order of dismissal from service which has clearly been passed on the basis of a defective enquiry report and the grievance raised by the petitioner against the enquiry proceedings though valid in the eye of law left unattended, render the impugned action as arbitrary, wholly unjust and unfair. The disciplinary proceedings are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings. The charges levelled against the delinquent employee are bound to be proved even in absence of a reply to the charge-sheet. The disciplinary proceedings are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings. The charges levelled against the delinquent employee are bound to be proved even in absence of a reply to the charge-sheet. From the original record it transpires that the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 18.4.1988 wherein the charge levelled against the petitioner for want of a reply filed by the petitioner was assumed to be proved on the basis of a preliminary enquiry report submitted by Pargana Adhikari, Haraiya, on 22.3.1984. From the original record it transpires that the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 18.4.1988 wherein the charge levelled against the petitioner for want of a reply filed by the petitioner was assumed to be proved on the basis of a preliminary enquiry report submitted by Pargana Adhikari, Haraiya, on 22.3.1984. The enquiry officer in his report dated 18.4.1988 for disciplinary action has also recorded as under: ^^ijxukf/kdkjh gjSZ;k us viuh tkWp fjiksVZ fnukWd 22-3-84 esa ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS fd Jh izse pUnz o Jh pUnz iq=x.k cnzh izlkn fuoklh xzke HkVgk taxy rglhy gjSZ;k ftyk cLrh tkfr ds oS"; gSA bl izdkj bUgksus tkfr izek.k&i= tkjh djus esa lko/kkuh ugha cjrh vkSj lo.kZ tkfr ds lnL; dks vuqlwfpr tkfr ds lnL; dk izke.k&i= nsdj vuqfpr ykHk mBkus dk volj fn;k gSA tkfr izek.k&i= ds jftLVj esa Jh pUnz o Jh izse pUnz iq=x.k cnzh izlkn dks tkjh fd;s x;s tkfr izek.k i= ds dzekad 69 o 70 ij buds gLrk{kj fo|eku gSaA vkjksi iw.kZ : is.k fl) gS fd mUgksaus tkfr izek.k i= ij viuk gLrk{kj cuk;k gSA blds lkFk gh Jh misUnz ef.k f=ikBh }kjk vkjksi i= dk Li"Vhdj.k u nsuk ;g fl) djrk gS fd muds ikl bl vkjksi dk dksbZ tokc ugha gS vkSj vkjksi i= mUgsa Lohdk;Z gSA lo.kZ tkfr ds lnL; dks vuqlwfpr tkfr dk izek.k&i= tkjh djuk 'kklukns'k ds foijhr gSa blls Jh f=ikBh dh lR;fu"Bk lafnX/k gksrh gSA pWwfd bl ekeys esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 2985 lu~ 1984 fopkjk/khu gS vr% tc rd bl ;kfpdk dk fu.kZ; ugha gks tkrk gS rc rd ds fy, fuEu n.M izLrkfor fd;k tkrk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k ikfjr gksus ij rnuqlkj dkjokbZ dh tk;A ¼1½ Jh misUnz ef.k f=ikBh dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k izkIr gksus rd uk;c rglhynkj ds in ij QhYM esa u j[kk tk;A ¼2½ foHkkxh; tkWp ds nkSjku vkjksi i= dk mRrj u nsuk Hkh ,d jktdh; deZpkjh ds fy; xEHkhj vuq'kklughurk gS vr% muds pfj= iaftdk esa fuEufyf[kr izfrdwy izfof"V vafdr dh tk; %& ^^ Jh misUnz ef.k f=ikBh us vius fo: ) foHkkxh; tkWp esa vkjksi i= dk mRrj u nsus ,oa okafNr lg;ksx u nsus ds dkj.k budh dBksj HkRlZuk dh tkrh gSA^^ 13. Reference to the pending writ petition in the enquiry report is with reference to the proposed action in furtherance of notice dated 18.7.2005 against the beneficiaries and that too is based on the report of Pargana Adhikari on 22.3.1984 on the basis of which charge has been framed against the petitioner. The report dated 22.3.1984 being a vital document of evidence in the charge-sheet remains yet to be proved departmentally or in the civil suit. The enquiry officer failed to record any evidence so as to prove the alleged report dated 22.3.1984 on the basis of oral or documentary evidence, therefore, assumption on the part of enquiry officer that charge levelled against the petitioner is proved solely on the basis of report dated 22.3.1984 is clearly perverse and unfounded. The petitioner even at the stage when reply to the show cause notice was submitted on 27.10.1988 has raised all these issues but the disciplinary authority has completely ignored the valid objection raised by the petitioner which renders the impugned action as bad in the eye of law. It is also surprising to note that a complete copy of the enquiry report mentioning the pendency of Writ Petition Nos. 2985/1984 and 2107/1983 filed by the beneficiaries of caste certificates was not communicated to the petitioner. The enquiry officer in his report reproduced above had made a definite recommendation to the disciplinary authority but all the exercise went in vain. A document which was neither proved in the enquiry proceedings nor the same has attained finality in the civil suit can be a basis of assuming the charge being proved against the petitioner is unworthy of being accepted and this Court unhesitatingly records a finding to this effect. 14. In my considered opinion, the enquiry report coupled with the order passed by disciplinary authority on 26.7.1989 being bad in the eye of law deserves to be quashed as well as cryptic order passed by the appellate authority on 29.1.2008. 15. 14. In my considered opinion, the enquiry report coupled with the order passed by disciplinary authority on 26.7.1989 being bad in the eye of law deserves to be quashed as well as cryptic order passed by the appellate authority on 29.1.2008. 15. Resultantly, the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner and proceedings in pursuance thereof shall be deemed pending subject to the outcome of civil suit or the determination of validity of caste certificates by the competent authority appointed, if any, in compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner Tribal, 1994 (6) SCC 241 , so that the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner may be brought to its logical conclusion. Petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of salary during the pendency of enquiry from the date of passing of dismissal order and shall be entitled to the provisional pension admissible to him as per law and the same shall be paid not later than three months from the date of communication of this judgment. The arrears of difference of salary and pension shall depend on the outcome of enquiry which may be concluded expeditiously in accordance with law. 16. The court takes a serious note of the dereliction of duty of the concerned State officers who have failed to pursue the interest of State in the suit proceedings mentioned in the body of judgment. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., to set the Government machinery in order so that the interest of the State Government does not suffer at the hands of officers so negligent of their duties. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.