JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rakesh Kumar learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records. 2. The writ petition was filed in the year 1993, challenging the order of punishment of dismissal of petitioner from service and recovery as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 3. As per facts given in the writ petition and submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner while working as Co-operative Kamdar was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.12.1990 and served with a charge-sheet, to which he had submitted reply denying the charges leveled against him. 4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned punishment order has been passed without holding enquiry as neither any witness nor any documentary evidence has been adduced in support of the charges. No oral enquiry has been held as no date, time or place to hold enquiry was fixed and informed to the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that the report dated 29.5.1990 of Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative), report dated 11.12.1990 of Branch Manager, Haiderganj, audit report dated 15.12.1990 of C.O. Audit, papers and files of Society available at the headquarters, preliminary enquiry report dated 20.8.1991, inventory report dated 29.12.1990, available documents and papers of the institution, relevant files available at headquarters, inventory report dated 6.7.1991, records of Branch, Haiderganj, report dated 11.12.1990 of Branch Manager, Haiderganj, report dated 29.6.1990 of Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative), report dated 29.6.1991 of Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative), letters dated 21.9.1990 and 6.10.1990 of U.P.S.S. Branch Manager and records of U.P.S.S. Branch, Faizabad were cited as evidence in the charge-sheet but these evidences have not been proved through any evidence on record inasmuch as no one has been examined to prove these documentary evidences and as a matter of fact, no witness of any kind whatsoever has been produced in support of the charges. These documents have also neither been made available to the petitioner nor copies of the same have been supplied to him despite repeated requests made by him through several letters. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has been deprived of opportunity of cross-examination of the evidences cited and fully described in the charge-sheet. 6. These documents have also neither been made available to the petitioner nor copies of the same have been supplied to him despite repeated requests made by him through several letters. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has been deprived of opportunity of cross-examination of the evidences cited and fully described in the charge-sheet. 6. Submission is that the Enquiry Officer merely on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet has submitted the enquiry report which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and established principles of law. The petitioner has been denied proper opportunity of defence in the enquiry proceedings. The impugned punishment order has been passed on the basis of enquiry report and, as such, in the given facts it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that the petitioner was also not provided copy of enquiry report. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments : (1) Suresh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2008(26) Part-I LCD 461, Para 10. (2) Parasu Ram Singh v. Secretary of Agriculture, U.P. Lucknow and others, 2008(26) Part-II LCD 1522, Para 6. (3) Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., 2003(21) LCD 610, Paras 7 and 8. (4) State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 722, Paras 27, 28, 29, 30, 33 and 34 and (5) Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 . 8. It is further submitted that this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.2.2012, passed in Writ Petition No. 5542 (SS) of 2009 (Arun Prakash Mishra v. State Cadre Authority, U.P. and others) has held that since the petitioner has been denied to discharge his duties by wholly illegal order of punishment passed by the respondents without even conducting the enquiry properly, as such, he is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 9. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, on the basis of counter-affidavit as well as relevant records which have been produced before the Court, submits that the service of the petitioner was governed under Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976, which do not provide that in the departmental enquiry it is necessary to fix date or place to hold oral enquiry. 10. Submission is that since the Rules do not provide, as such, it was not necessary for the Enquiry Officer to hold any oral enquiry to prove the charges. He had the discretion to conclude the enquiry proceedings on the basis of documentary evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer gave a detailed enqiury report where he has given reasons to come to conclusion that the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner is proved and in support of his conclusion he has relied on certain documents, which were on record. The contention is that the Enquiry Officer was not duty bound to fix any date, time or place to hold oral enquiry and since the documentary evidence was sufficient to prove the charges, as such, no infirmity or illegality was committed in the departmental enquiry. It is also submitted that the petitioner was supplied all the relevant documents, however, he did not make any reply controverting the said evidences. 11. In support of his submissions Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Narendra Kumar Pandey, (2013) 2 SCC 740 . 12. I have heard the submissions made by parties’ counsel and gone through the records. 13. The petitioner while working as Co-operative Kamdar was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.12.1990 and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The charge-sheet dated 21.8.1991 was served on the petitioner. The main charge against the petitioner was that while posted as Kamdar, Prabhari Sahkari Krishi Purti Bhandar/Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Haiderganj, Faizabad, he has absented himself from duty with effect from June, 1990 and had caused losses to the institution. The petitioner has also been charged that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 52,539.93. The petitioner had submitted reply to the said charge-sheet, denying the alleged charges. 14. From the records, it appears that the Enquiry Officer, after submission of reply by the petitioner had not fixed any date, time or place to hold enquiry. The enquiry report dated 29.10.1991 indicates that Enquiry Officer has relied on various documents to come to conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved and he is guilty of alleged misconduct. 15. The enquiry report dated 29.10.1991 indicates that Enquiry Officer has relied on various documents to come to conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved and he is guilty of alleged misconduct. 15. The short question involved in this writ petition which requires consideration is whether in the departmental enquiry when the delinquent employee has denied the alleged charges and has submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, the Enquiry Officer was required to hold oral enquiry to prove the charges on the basis of documentary evidences and examination of witnesses and for that purpose was required to fix a date, place and time for enquiry. 16. In the present case, it is the admitted fact that no date, time or place was fixed by the Enquiry Officer to hold the oral enquiry. It is also fairly conceded by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the basis of available records that Enquiry Officer had relied on certain documents to come to conclusion that charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved, however, the enquiry proceedings to consider these documents were not held in the presence of petitioner. 17. I am of the considered view that in case the delinquent employee has denied the charges, it is mandatory for the Enquiry Officer to hold the oral enquiry by fixing date, time and place by giving notice to the charged employee as well as the departmental Presenting Officer. The enquiry proceedings shall be held the presence of the delinquent employee as well as the Presenting Officer and the documents relied in support of the charges shall be supplied to the delinquent employee or he shall be given an opportunity to peruse the same. In case the delinquent employee is not Co-operating in the enquiry, an order to that effect shall be passed by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter ex parte enquiry may be proceeded. The said procedure is required to be followed as it is necessary in terms of the principles of natural justice to provide proper and adequate opportunity of defence to the delinquent employee. Even in case the Rules do not provide the said procedure, it does not mean that the same is not required to be followed. The principles of natural justice are inculcated in all the relevant rules relating to service jurisprudence and they are required to be followed without exception. 18. Even in case the Rules do not provide the said procedure, it does not mean that the same is not required to be followed. The principles of natural justice are inculcated in all the relevant rules relating to service jurisprudence and they are required to be followed without exception. 18. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for opposite parties in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Narendra Kumar Pandey (supra) is concerned, needless to observe that in that case the delinquent employee had refused to Co-operate in the enquiry and the enquiry was held ex parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraphs 20 and 22 of the judgment in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Narendra Kumar Pandey (supra). The same are reproduced hereinbelow : “20. We are of the view that the High Court has committed an error in holding that the charge-sheet should have mentioned about the details of the documents and the names of the witnesses which the Bank proposed to examine and a list to that effect should have been appended to the charge-sheet. We may point out that the charge-sheet need not contain the details of the documents or the names of the witnesses proposed to be examined to prove the charges or a list to that effect unless there is a specific provision to that effect. Charge-sheet, in other words, is not expected to be a record of evidence. Fair procedure does not mean giving of copies of the documents or list of witnesses alongwith the charge-sheet. Of course, statement of allegations has to accompany the charge-sheet, when required by the Service Rules. 22. We are of the view that the High Court also committed an error in holding that since no witness was examined in support of charges, it was a case of no evidence. In an ex parte inquiry, in our view, if the charges are borne out from documents kept in the normal course of business, no oral evidence is necessary to prove those charges. When the charged officer does not attend the inquiry, then he cannot contend that the Inquiring Authority should not have relied upon the documents which were not made available or disclosed to him. When the charged officer does not attend the inquiry, then he cannot contend that the Inquiring Authority should not have relied upon the documents which were not made available or disclosed to him. Of course, even in an ex parte inquiry, some evidence is necessary to establish the charges, especially when the charged officer denies the charges, uncontroverted documentary evidence in such situation is sufficient to prove the charges.” 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in fact observed that it is not necessary to annex all the documents and the details of names of witnesses proposed to be examined in the charge-sheet. There is no dispute to the aforesaid legal proposition. The charge-sheet need not contain the details of all the documents which are considered by the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings, however, it does not mean that the said documents can be relied by the Enquiry Officer without providing the said documents to the delinquent employee and without giving an opportunity to controvert the same. In para 22 of the above-said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that when the charged officer does not attend the enquiry then he cannot contend that the inquiring authority should not have relied upon the documents which were not made available or disclosed to him. In that case an ex parte enquiry was being held and, as such, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that in case the charged employee has not Co-operated in the enquiry, he has no right to raise objection that documents which have been relied in the enquiry were not supplied or provided to him as he had relinquished that right by not Co-operating in the enquiry. As such, I am of the considered view that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for opposite parties is of no help to him. 20. So far as the judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned there is no dispute to the legal proposition that in the departmental enquiry in case the charges have been denied by a delinquent employee then it is necessary for the Enquiry Officer to hold the oral enquiry by fixing date, time and place of enquiry. It is also held that the documents relied by the Enquiry Officer are required to be made available to the delinquent employee to give an opportunity to controvert and defend himself. 21. It is also held that the documents relied by the Enquiry Officer are required to be made available to the delinquent employee to give an opportunity to controvert and defend himself. 21. In the case of Suresh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. (supra) this Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment has observed as under : “10. From the perusal of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel (supra), it is evident that according to the law settled by Honble Apex Court, it is always incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to record oral evidence with liberty to the delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses. After the evidence adduced by the Department to prove the charges, it is also necessary that the delinquent employee be given the opportunity to lead evidence in defence. In the case of Radhey Kant Khare (supra) after considering various pronouncements of Honble the Apex Court and this Court, a Division Bench of this Court has held that after charge-sheet is given to an employee, oral enquiry is must. It is immaterial whether the employee makes request for it or not. Meaning thereby, whether an employee submits reply to the charge-sheet or not, or even if an employee submits reply to the charge-sheet, it is always incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to record oral evidence in the presence of the delinquent employee. In case, the charged employee is not present or does not Co-operate with the enquiry proceedings, even then it is necessary for the Enquiry Officer to record the statement of the witnesses orally by proceeding ex parte.” 22. In the case of Parasu Ram Singh v. Secretary of Agriculture (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has held that it is necessary to hold oral enquiry. Relevant Paragraph 6 of the judgment on reproduction reads as under : “6. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge-sheet dated 19.5.1984 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to inspect the documents by the Enquiry Officer on 19.1.1985 and thereafter he submitted reply to the charge-sheet before the Enquiry Officer on 21.1.1985. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the charges levelled in the charge-sheet and the reply submitted by the petitioner, submitted the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority who passed the impugned dismissal order on 26.8.1985. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the charges levelled in the charge-sheet and the reply submitted by the petitioner, submitted the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority who passed the impugned dismissal order on 26.8.1985. It is admitted case of the parties that after filing of the charge-sheet and submission of reply by the petitioner to the charge-sheet, no oral enquiry was held in the matter. The Department has also not examined any witness to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet. This Court has already held that after the charge-sheet is given to a delinquent employee an oral enquiry is must, whether the employee requests for it or not. The record which has been produced before us reveals that after submission of reply to the charge-sheet, no date or time was fixed by the Enquiry Officer for recording of evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the Department to prove the charges as also for the defence witnesses for holding the enquiry. We are of the view that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing and no oral enquiry as required by law was held. The case law relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel in Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC, Etawah and others v. Hoti Lal and another, (2003) 3 SCC 605 and Sahadeo Singh and others v. Union of India and others, JT 2003 (10) SC 665, are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the instant case, before passing the dismissal order no enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and no witness was examined by the opposite parties to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. The impugned dismissal order is legally not sustainable.” 23. In Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. (supra) in paragraphs 7 and 8 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the oral enquiry is a must whether the employee requests for it or not. Relevant Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment on reproduction read as under : “7. In a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills, 1999 (4) AWC 3227 : 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 , in which one of us (Hon’ble M. Katju, J.) was a member, this law has been laid down. The law is as follows: 8. In a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills, 1999 (4) AWC 3227 : 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 , in which one of us (Hon’ble M. Katju, J.) was a member, this law has been laid down. The law is as follows: 8. After a charge-sheet is given to the employee, an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not. Hence, a notice should be issued to him indicating him the date, time and place of the enquiry. On that date the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence vide, A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) U LLJ 396 (SC). Ordinarily, if the employee is examined first, it is illegal vide Anand Joshi v. M.S.F.C., 1991 LIC 1666 (Bom); S.D. Sharma v. Trade Fair Authority of India, (1985) II LLJ 193 and Central Railway v. Raghubir Saran, (1983) II LLJ 26. No doubt, in certain exceptional cases, the employee may be asked to lead evidence first, vide Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 236 , but ordinarily the rule is that first the employer must adduce his evidence. The reason for this principle is that the charge-sheeted employee should not only know the charges against him but should also know the evidence against him so that he can properly reply to the same. Where no witnesses were examined and no exhibit or record is made but straightaway the employee was asked to produce his evidence and documents in support of his case it is Illegal vide P.C. Thomas v. Mutholi Co-operative Society Ltd., 1978 LIC 1428 Ker, and Meengles Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 .” 24. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) similar observations have been made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 33 and 34 which on reproduction read as under : “27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-Rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-Rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the Government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the enquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the enquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the Government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the enquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the enquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. 28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 29. Apart from the above by virtue of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India the departmental inquiry had to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding which may culminate in a punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a department enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry 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 enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry 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. 33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the enquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of principles natural justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet. 34.This Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 229 , had clearly stated the rationale for the rule requiring supply of copies of the documents, sought to be relied upon by the authorities to prove the charges levelled against a Government servant. In that case the enquiry proceedings had been challenged on the ground that non supply of the statements of the witnesses and copies of the documents had resulted in the breach of rules of natural justice. The appellant therein had requested for supply of the copies of the documents as well as the statements of the witnesses at a preliminary enquiry. The request made by the appellant was in terms turned down by the disciplinary authority. “ 25. In the case of Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the delinquent employee is entitled to copy of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and to make a representation against it. Non-furnishing of the report to the delinquent would be violative of principles of natural justice. 26. Ramzan Khan (supra) it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the delinquent employee is entitled to copy of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and to make a representation against it. Non-furnishing of the report to the delinquent would be violative of principles of natural justice. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument that in case the Court comes to conclusion that the impugned order is wholly illegal as he is entitled for all consequential benefits has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Arun Prakash Mishra v. State Cadre Authority (supra) wherein the Court in paragraph 11 has made following observations : “11. In the present case petitioner has been denied to discharge duties by wholly illegal order of punishment passed by respondents without even proving misconduct on the part of the petitioner and therefore, petitioner cannot be made to suffer for a fault over which he has no control but for which sole responsibility lie upon the respondents. Any other view would make it a case where despite success the petitioner would suffer arbitrarily. No employee has any right to work but the only right recognized in law is his right to claim salary and if arrears of salary is not paid to him that would amount to penalizing the petitioner for something for which he was not at fault and would give benefit to the respondents of their own fault. This is against any principle of justice as held by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3932 of 2008 (Bhanu Pratap v. Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Sewae, U.P. Lucknow and others) decided on 8.3.2011.” 27. In view of above, I am of the considered view that the impugned punishment order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 28. The writ petition, as such, is allowed. The order impugned is quashed with liberty to the opposite parties to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law following the principles of natural justice from the stage of submission of reply to the charge-sheet. In case the opposite parties take a decision to hold the enquiry the same shall be held expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authorities concerned. The petitioner shall Co-operate in the enquiry. In case the opposite parties take a decision to hold the enquiry the same shall be held expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authorities concerned. The petitioner shall Co-operate in the enquiry. During the pendency of the enquiry the petitioner shall be reinstated in service. It would be open for the opposite parties to place the petitioner under suspension in case it is so required. However, the arrears of salary etc. would depend on the outcome of the enquiry, if any. ——————