JUDGMENT The appellant has questioned the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07th December, 2012 contending that in the absence of any material on record to infer that the disciplinary inquiry against the appellant had been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in proceeding to hold that the inquiry had been conducted after due opportunity, inasmuch as, even assuming that the opportunity had been offered to the appellant, the respondents had failed to prove the charges by adducing any evidence in support thereof and conducting an oral inquiry. 2. The matter was heard earlier by a bench on 03rd December, 2015 and the following order was passed: - "Heard Sri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Ajay Kumar for the respondent. This appeal questions the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not touched on the issue relating to the challenge raised about the process of inquiry as conducted by the Inquiry Officer and its concurrence by the Disciplinary Authority. The inquiry had to proceed from the stage of the reply submitted to the charge sheet as per the judgment dated 13.4.2006. Learned counsel submits that inspite of this clear direction and with a direction to provide the relevant documents to the petitioner and inspite of the fact that the petitioner had raised this demand, the respondent-Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry without complying with the directions contained therein and without holding either any oral inquiry or any inquiry worth the name after fixing dates as is desired under the rules and the position of law as explained by several decisions of this Court and the Apex Court. He submits that so far as providing of opportunity is concerned, the inquiry does not terminate merely because opportunity has been provided even if the same has not been availed of by the Delinquent Officer. The submission is that in such a case for holding of an inquiry even if required ex parte, in order to prove the charges by leading evidence either documentary or orally that may be desirable to establish the same the inquiry will have to proceed. The submission is that in such a case for holding of an inquiry even if required ex parte, in order to prove the charges by leading evidence either documentary or orally that may be desirable to establish the same the inquiry will have to proceed. Learned counsel submits that the inquiry report which has been submitted and has been made the basis of the punishment order relies on extracts of the earlier inquiry report that was subject matter of litigation and had already been set aside by the High Court. Except for verbatim reproduction of the recital contained in the earlier inquiry report nothing has been done in the fresh inquiry nor any fresh inquiry has been held. The contention, therefore, is that the inquiry not having been conducted on those fundamental principles in order to prove the charges against the appellant, the order of punishment could not have been sustained and this aspect of the matter also has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, as such the impugned order passed against the appellant as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserve to be set aside. Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, prays that he may be permitted to study this aspect of the matter to answer the direct questions raised by the appellant. List on 16.12.2015. The interim order shall continue until further orders of the Court." 3. A perusal of the aforesaid order would indicate that the Court had noticed the legal infirmity in the procedure of an inquiry and had called upon the respondents to answer the same. 4. Advancing his submissions learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions: - "(A) No date, time and place was fixed by the Enquiry Officer for holding an oral enquiry. No evidence was led by the department to prove the charges nor any opportunity was given to the Appellant to cross examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of reply submitted by Appellant and the earlier enquiry report submitted by the Director, Department of Handicapped Welfare dated 23.6.2003 which had already been set aside by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment and order dated 13.4.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.254(SB) of 2005, 'Gopalji Vs. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of reply submitted by Appellant and the earlier enquiry report submitted by the Director, Department of Handicapped Welfare dated 23.6.2003 which had already been set aside by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment and order dated 13.4.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.254(SB) of 2005, 'Gopalji Vs. State of U.P. and others' submitted an enquiry report which is against the principle of natural justice and is a case of no enquiry, therefore, is a nullity in the eyes of law 1. 2013(31) LCD 1319 paras 8,9,17, Moti Ram Vs. State of U.P. and ors 2. 2011(29) LCD 2024 paras 8,9,10, Yog Narain Dubey Vs. M.D. & ors 3. 2010(28) LCD 528 paras 11,12, Krishan Kishore Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & ors 4. (2009)30 LCD 990 para 11, Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors. Vs. Shri Devendra Kr. Upadhyay 5. (2003) 21 LCD 610 paras 8, 9 Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Federation 2013(31) LCD 2568 paras 32 to 35 (Supra), Dr. (Smt.) Abha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others. (B) In a departmental enquiry the Enquiry Officer is required to lead evidence and prove the charges. The onus lies on the department to prove the charges and the burden cannot be shifted on the employee to disprove the charges. Accordingly, the punishment passed by the disciplinary authority on thee basis of a vitiated enquiry report is a nullity in the eyes of law and requires to be set aside. 6. 2013(4) SCC 301 paras 39, 52.3, 52.4, Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and another 7. (1998) 6 SCC 651 paras 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10, State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal and another 8. (2009) 2 SCC 570 paras 14, 21, 23, Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank (C) Copy of report of the Enquiry Officer is required to be supplied to the delinquent employee to furnish his reply and failure to do so causes prejudice to the delinquent employee and results in violation of principle of natural justice. A show cause notice dated 13.08.2009 was served upon the Appellant and he made an endorsement on 20.08.2009 on it that no copy of the enquiry report was provided to him alongwith the show cause notice. A show cause notice dated 13.08.2009 was served upon the Appellant and he made an endorsement on 20.08.2009 on it that no copy of the enquiry report was provided to him alongwith the show cause notice. In view of the fact that copy of enquiry report was not provided to the Appellant, the Appellant was prejudiced and the principle of natural justice was also violated. 9. 1993(5) SLR 532 : (1993)4 SCC 727 , MD, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar 10. 1991(1) SCC 588 , Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramjan Khan (D) Non supply of documents during the course of disciplinary enquiry results in violation of principle of natural justice and causes prejudice to the delinquent employee. Merely saying that the delinquent employee could have inspected the documents at any time is not enough. The Enquiry Officer has never showed documents of which the copies are asked for inspection and access to the record must be assured to him. The Appellant vide letters dated 5.7.2006 and 5.10.2006 page 287 requested for documents which were neither supplied nor allowed to be inspected by the Enquiry Officer during the course of enquiry. In fact the Appellant submitted a reply dated 3.9.2008 page 348 to 358 of the Special Appeal to the chargesheet dated 11.10.2002 and 30.11.2002 although the documents were not supplied to him. 11. 2011(14) SCC 379 para 12, Anil Gilurker Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another 12. (2012) 30 LCD 809 para 8, Janardan Prasad Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others (E) Principle of natural justice demand that an application for summoning the witnesses by the delinquent officer should be considered by the Enquiry Officer. Since the Enquiry Officer failed to summon the witnesses, the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated. The Appellant vide letter dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure-34 page 348 to 354) requested the Enquiry Officer for summoning the witnesses for examination but the Enquiry Officer neither summoned those witnesses nor they were examined during the departmental enquiry. 13. (2009) 2 SCC 541 , para 15, Union of India Vs. Prakash Kr. Tandon. 14. 2013 (31) LCD 2568 , para 36 to 38, Dr. (Smt.) Abha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others (F) The disciplinary authority is required to pass an order of punishment only after considering the enquiry report and the reply submitted by the delinquent to it. Prakash Kr. Tandon. 14. 2013 (31) LCD 2568 , para 36 to 38, Dr. (Smt.) Abha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others (F) The disciplinary authority is required to pass an order of punishment only after considering the enquiry report and the reply submitted by the delinquent to it. In the instant case the disciplinary authority neither discussed the enquiry report nor the reply submitted by the Appellant, accordingly, the punishment order is wholly vitiated and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 2013(31) LCD 2568 , paras 22, 23 (supra), Dr. (Smt.) Abha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others (G) Even in the case of ex-parte enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has to hold the enquiry according to the procedure prescribed and an intimation may be given to the delinquent employee about the date, time and place of oral enquiry. Charges leveled against the delinquent employee need to be proved even if no response is submitted by the employee and he/she does not participate in the enquiry. 15. (2012) 30 LCD 1676 , para 8, Smt. Amina Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad 16. 2007 (25) LCD 826 , para 3, Nanehey Lal Gupta Vs. U.P. Upbhogta Sahakari Sangh (2012) 30 LCD 809 para 10 (supra), Janarden Prasad Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others. (H) Where a charge of embezzlement/corruption is leveled against an employee it has to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences on the employee. Therefore, such a grave charge was required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and cannot be proved on mere probabilities. 17. 2009 (122) FLR 684 ; (2009) 12 SCC 78 para 15, Union of India Vs. Gyan Chandra Chattar (I) In a departmental enquiry, the chargesheet has to be approved by the disciplinary authority. A chargesheet which is not approved by the disciplinary authority is nonest in the eyes of law. The Appellant who was an employee of Accounts Section, Basic Education was serving in the Department of Handicapped Welfare, U.P. by way of transfer of service. The Applicant was served two chargesheets dated 11.10.2002 and 30.11.2002 issued by the State Government which were not approved by the Finance Controller, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad, the disciplinary authority of the Appellant. The Appellant who was an employee of Accounts Section, Basic Education was serving in the Department of Handicapped Welfare, U.P. by way of transfer of service. The Applicant was served two chargesheets dated 11.10.2002 and 30.11.2002 issued by the State Government which were not approved by the Finance Controller, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad, the disciplinary authority of the Appellant. The Finance Controller, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad vide letter dated 14.6.2006 (page 246 to 248) of the Special Appeal passed an order directing the Enquiry Officer to get the chargesheet approved by him and to complete the enquiry within two months. 18. 2013(31) 2031 para 2, 49, Union of India Vs. B.V. Gopinath" 5. Replying to the same, learned counsel for the respondents Shri Ajay Kumar has urged that the appellant has never co-operated in the inquiry and had been raising irrelevant issues as a result whereof he attempted to scuttle the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer, therefore, concluded the inquiry and the disciplinary authority had no option but to accept the same and pass the order dated 01st October, 2009 imposing punishment on the appellant. 6. It is further contended that the principles of natural justice have been observed but it was the appellant who failed to avail of the opportunities offered and therefore, no interference is called for. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has finally invited the attention of the Court to the judgment in the case of Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Ranghunath Singh Rana and Ors. - 2016 (34) LCD 2300 to contend that even if the appellant had not attended the inquiry proceedings even then the respondents were under an obligation to prove the charges by adducing evidence through an oral inquiry. There could be no automatic inference of proving of the charges for the purpose of passing the impugned order of punishment. He, therefore, submits that there being a clear procedural violation, the inquiry proceedings stands vitiated, hence the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions raised, it remains undisputed that the respondents even though had given an opportunity to the appellant, they on their part did not prove the charges by adducing independent evidence through oral inquiry and the inquiry report was submitted without following the said procedure. 8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions raised, it remains undisputed that the respondents even though had given an opportunity to the appellant, they on their part did not prove the charges by adducing independent evidence through oral inquiry and the inquiry report was submitted without following the said procedure. The judgments which have been cited at the bar and noted hereinabove on the said issue, therefore, squarely apply on the facts of the present case in the aforesaid admitted position. The fact that no dates were fixed and the evidence was not adduced to prove the charges against the appellant is, therefore, clearly established on the facts of the present case. 9. It may be noticed that the appellant had earlier come up before this Court and on account of violation of principles of natural justice this Court had issued clear directions vide judgment dated 13.04.2006 in W.P. No.254 (SB) of 2005 to conclude the proceedings by following the due process of inquiry as noted above. The respondents failed to adhere to the same and in the aforesaid circumstances the order of punishment dated 01.10.2009 cannot be sustained. 10. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition on 07.12.2012 does not appear to have recorded any finding on this issue and consequently the impugned judgment also stands vitiated for the same reasons. 11. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 07.12.2012 in W.P. No.6596 (SS) of 2009 as well as the order impugned in the writ petition dated 01.10.2009 with a direction that the inquiry shall be concluded within a period of three months of the date of production of certified copy of the order from the stage of the inquiry which shall be conducted and concluded as indicated above. 12. The respondent/authority shall adhere to the directions already given by this Court in the judgment dated 13.04.2006 and proceed accordingly. The respondent shall also bear in mind that the inquiry is concluded and the appellant shall co-operate in the inquiry in view of the fact that the appellant is due to retire within a year. 13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all consequential benefits.