JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Factual matrix of the present case are that Nonconventional Energy Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as NEDA) is an Instrumentally of the State Government in which petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant in 1992 and thereafter designation has been changed to her as Junior Clerk. While she was working and discharging her duties on the said post, an order dated 31.10.2012 has been issued by the District Election Officer, Lucknow that she was appointed as Booth Level Officer (hereinafter referred to as BLO) for parliamentary election. 2. In pursuance to the said fact/order, he was relieved on 05.11.2012, relieved and joined in the District Election Office, Lucknow on deputation. While working on the said capacity, by order dated 09.01.2014 passed by opposite party no.3, she has been placed under suspension on the allegation that she has not performed her election duties in the office of NEDA. However, suspension order was kept in abeyance by the appointing authority by order dated 16.01.2014. 3. Thereafter, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.367 (SS) of 2014 challenging the suspension order, disposed of by order dated 24.03.2014. Aggrieved by the same, he filed Special Appeal No.207 of 2014. In the meantime, on 26.02.2014, charge sheet was served upon her and after receiving the same, petitioner demanded certain documents in order to submit her reply, but no heed paid. On 29.04.2014, petitioner submitted her reply to the charge sheet inter alia taking the charges. On 09.05.2014, opposite party no.3 has passed the impugned order of punishment. Thereafter, petitioner filed statutory appeal on 10.06.2014 before the appellate authority in which written statement has been filed on 16.09.2014. By order dated 03.11.2014, the statutory appeal was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the orders dated 09.05.2014 and 03.11.2014, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the punishment order as well as appellate order on the following grounds : - 1. Petitioner was on deemed deputation on election duty and in view of the provisions contained in Section 13 CC, no disciplinary proceeding could be initiated against the petitioner for not attending office. 2. Petitioner's attendance has been certified by the District Election Officer and as such petitioner could not be punished for absence from duty in the office of the NEDA. 3. 2. Petitioner's attendance has been certified by the District Election Officer and as such petitioner could not be punished for absence from duty in the office of the NEDA. 3. The entire disciplinary proceedings were held against the petitioner at Hardoi while petitioner was working in the District Election Officer, Lucknow and as such disciplinary proceedings and punishment order in pursuance thereof is violative of principles of natural justice. 4. No date, time and place has been fixed intimating the petitioner to appear before the enquiry officer at Hardoi. 5. Ex parte enquiry has been concluded without allowing the petitioner to inspect record. 6. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, the position which emerges out is that in spite of the time granted to the contesting respondents, till date no counter affidavit has been filed. Thus, keeping in view the above said facts as well as law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Choksi Tube Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 197 and Naseen Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2592 , the facts as stated by the petitioner are taken to be true. 8. Further, from the perusal of the record, the admitted position which emerges out is that after serving of the charge sheet on the petitioner dated 26.02.2014 by the opposite party no.3, the petitioner demanded certain documents in order to submit her reply, but the same has not been given to him. However, she submitted her reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter without fixing date, time and place, enquiry officer has submitted the enquiry report on the basis of which show cause notice has been issued. Taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice in which it has been categorically taken a defence that no domestic enquiry has been done. Opposite party no.3 has passed impugned punishment order dated 09.05.2014 without considering the said facts. 9. In view of the above said facts as well as taking into consideration the facts that regular inquiry means opportunity to submit reply to charge-sheet and also to lead evidence in defence. Opposite party no.3 has passed impugned punishment order dated 09.05.2014 without considering the said facts. 9. In view of the above said facts as well as taking into consideration the facts 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. 10. 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. 11. 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." 12. 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. 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." 13. Punishment order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the opposite party no.3 was challenged by the petitioner by filing the statutory appeal before the appellate authority/opposite party no.2. 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." 13. Punishment order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the opposite party no.3 was challenged by the petitioner by filing the statutory appeal before the appellate authority/opposite party no.2. In the said appeal, petitioner has categorically taken a defence that in the present case, no date, time and place has been fixed by the enquiry officer while holding the disciplinary proceedings. So, enquiry proceeding is in contravention to the principles of natural justice and on the basis of which the punishment order is liable to be set aside. However, while passing the appellate order, the appellate authority had not considered the said facts. 14. Further, before the appellate authority, the petitioner has also taken a defence in the appeal that opposite party no.3 has no jurisdiction to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner during election duty performed by her. Section 13CC of Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950 provides that any officer so far employed in connection with the preparation, revision and correction of electoral rolls and conduct of election shall be deemed to be on deputation to the election commission for the period during which she is so employeed, but the same has not been considered rather on the point in issue, the impugned order is non-speaking order. 15. Petitioner in the appeal has categorically stated that while discharging his duties with the Election Commission of India at Lucknow, no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner for not performing the duties in the department. Until and unless, she was relieved from the office of the District Election Officer, he was not in a position to discharge the work assigned by the department on the post concerned. Petitioner also claimed that since she was on election duty and as such her service shall be deemed on deputation with the Election Commission of India and the department had no power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner during his posting in Election Commission of India. Petitioner has specifically mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the petitioner remained on election duty with effect from 05.11.2012 to 26.05.2014. Petitioner has specifically mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the petitioner remained on election duty with effect from 05.11.2012 to 26.05.2014. The petitioner has also submitted attendance certificate from the office of District Election Officer, Lucknow in this regard, but the opposite party no.3 failed to take into account the various documents and evidence placed on record. Opposite party no.3, with malafide intention, passed the impugned punishment order and the entire disciplinary proceedings are without jurisdiction. 16. However, without taking into consideration the said facts and without dealing the said issue, no reasoning has been given by the appellant authority while passing the appellate order. Thus, as per the said facts and it is well settled law that an 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. 17. In Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, reported in 1971(1) AIIER 1148, it was held that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd.Vs. Crabtress, reported in 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC) it was observed that "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". 18. 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. 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." 19. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and otehrs, AIR 1970 SC 1302 , held that such an order cancellation is quasi-judicial and must be a speaking one and supported by a reason and if a reason is caprice one, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside. 20. The said view was further reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and others, AIR 1974 SC 87 , further in the case of Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt etc. etc. Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept. and Ors. AIR 1980 SC 1 , Hon'ble the Apex Court in the judgment referring Broom's Legal Maxims (1939 Edition, page 97) where the principle in Latin runs as "Ces-sante Ratione Legis Cessate Ipsa Lex" held that "reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself" (See. also M/s. Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1984 SC 160 ). 21. In the case of Maharasthra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. KS. Gandhi and Others, (1991) 2 SCC 716 , Ho'ble the Apex Court held that if no reason is recorded in the impugned order, the same is violative of principles of natural justice. 22. Moreover, in the case of Canara Bank and others Vs. Debasis Das and others (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 557 in which 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. 22. Moreover, in the case of Canara Bank and others Vs. Debasis Das and others (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 557 in which 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. 23. 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. 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." 24. 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." 24. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders dated 09.05.2014 and 03.11.2014 are liable to be set aside with a direction that opposite party no.3, if so advised, may proceed afresh in the matter in question from the stage of issuing of charge sheet after providing an opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law and take appropriate decision in the light of observations made herein above. 25. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 09.05.2014 and 03.11.2014 are set aside with the aforesaid direction.