JUDGMENT : Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against Judgment and order dated 30.09.2000 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow dismissing the Claim petition no-545 of 1997. 2. Brief facts unfurled from the enquiry report and impugned judgment are that petitioner, Jogendra Pal, was initially appointed as constable PAC (SPF) on 01.11.1966. From the date of appointment till the date of dismissal, petitioner rendered a very meritorious service. On 12.12.1992 petitioner while performing his duty in Tilak Inter Collage, Bareilly is alleged to have very carelessly shot gun under influence of liquor causing serious injuries to colleague constable Sri Pal Singh. The injuries resulted in his death. Petitioner was medically examined and a FIR was lodged against petitioner bearing crime no-761 of 1992 under section 304A IPC in police station Quila District Bareilly. Petitioner was tried for the above offence. However he was acquitted of the charge on 08.08.1996 after full trial. During pendency of criminal case departmental enquiry was also set up by issuing charge sheet to the petitioner on 08.01.1993 by Assistant Commandant SPF Moradabad Sri Shiv Dan Singh on two counts, firstly, that on 12.12.1992, petitioner had been under alcoholic influence while he was on duty at Tilak Inter Collage, Bareilly, and, secondly, that on the same day, he, by his negligence, fired at his colleague constable Sri Pal Singh by his own weapon causing his murder. Thus he was alleged to be guilty of gross misconduct and negligence in his duties. 3. During pendency of enquiry, petitioner was placed under suspension. In enquiry he was found guilty of misconduct for violation of para 4A (B) of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956 in as much as he consumed liquor while he was on his duty. On enquiry report of Assistant Commandant SPF, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 31 July 1993. In enquiry he was found guilty of misconduct for violation of para 4A (B) of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956 in as much as he consumed liquor while he was on his duty. On enquiry report of Assistant Commandant SPF, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 31 July 1993. Petitioner approached Tribunal for quashing of dismissal order dated 31.07.1993 and also appellate order dated 31.10.1995 on the ground that charge-sheet was issued by Assistant Commandant who was not competent to do it without approval of appointing authority, i.e. commandant SPF; that copy of evidence was not supplied to the petitioner during enquiry depriving petitioner from opportunity of hearing; that on similar facts petitioner was acquitted of charge under section 304A IPC by the competent Magistrate; that no date of personal hearing was ever fixed and; that Medical Officer who had given certificate of intoxication was not examined. 4. After hearing parties, Tribunal having found no merit in the contention of petitioner dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of Tribunal this writ petition has been filed. 5. We have heard Sri Bidhu Bhushan Kalia, the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 6. In this writ petition mainly two fold arguments have been advanced by petitioner:- a. Whether acquittal of petitioner in criminal case exonerates him in enquiry ? b. Whether petitioner was not supplied with copy of evidence relied in support of charges and thereby he was denied opportunity of fair hearing ? 7. Instance of domestic enquiry along with police case is not unusual for the act constituting misconduct by an employee. Now question arises, whether Criminal proceedings and departmental can proceed simultaneously and also whether acquittal in criminal case exonerates employee from charges in departmental proceeding.? 8. The question was firstly discussed in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan AIR 1960 SC 806 in which it was held that it can be fair on the part of employer to stay enquiries pending decision in the criminal trial but principles of natural justice does not require so. However where the case is of a grave nature or involves question of fact or law, not being simple one, to wait for decision of trial court is advisable to avoid any prejudice to the defence of the employee. 9. However in Capt. However where the case is of a grave nature or involves question of fact or law, not being simple one, to wait for decision of trial court is advisable to avoid any prejudice to the defence of the employee. 9. However in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. ( 1999 (3) SCC 679 ), Court summarizing the issue, has laid down certain broad principles which may be reproduced as under- "(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest." 10. The above principles were followed in Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida and Others JT 2007 (2) SC 620 also where Court discussing elaborately the basic purpose of disciplinary and criminal proceeding observed that- "The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two different and distinct aspects. The above principles were followed in Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida and Others JT 2007 (2) SC 620 also where Court discussing elaborately the basic purpose of disciplinary and criminal proceeding observed that- "The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the department enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances" 11. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the department enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances" 11. It has been further observed :- "The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings. That being so, the order of the State Government deciding not to continue the departmental proceedings is clearly untenable and is quashed. The departmental proceedings shall continue". 12. From the aforesaid case laws, now it is established that the acquittal in criminal case has no effect on the disciplinary proceeding instituted on same facts. Even if there is an acquittal in the criminal case, same does not bar departmental proceedings. Thus in the present case though petitioner has been acquitted of charge under section 304A IPC, continuation of the departmental proceeding was not prohibited. Therefore enquiry report holding petitioner guilty is not bad on this count. 13. The second limb of argument of the petitioner is that during enquiry, copy of evidence relied on by the department in support of charges was not supplied to him. Thus he was not given opportunity of fair hearing. Admittedly copy of evidence was not supplied to the petitioner. The enquiry report itself mentions that during enquiry petitioner had demanded copy of documents but instead of supply of copy of documents, petitioner was asked by enquiry officer to inspect the record. Copy of not a single document including medical report was supplied to petitioner. Now question is whether it was obligatory on the part of enquiry officer to furnish copy or direction to inspect the record in office is sufficient compliance. 14. Time and again Courts have said repeatedly that documents relied in support of the charges must be supplied to the delinquent employee and in case the documents are so bulky that supply of copies is not practicable or is very difficult in that circumstance inspection may be allowed to the delinquent employee. 14. Time and again Courts have said repeatedly that documents relied in support of the charges must be supplied to the delinquent employee and in case the documents are so bulky that supply of copies is not practicable or is very difficult in that circumstance inspection may be allowed to the delinquent employee. The insistence is on supply of documents since the delinquent employee required the documents at difference stages on oral inquiry proceeding i.e. for preparation of defence, examination of departmental witnesses and his own witnesses making his submission before the inquiry officer etc. This is a well established law since several decades. 15. A delinquent employee has a right to place his defence at every stage of the proceedings as and when it is permissible and provided in law (See Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 ). 16. In Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 229 Court on the above issue said as under :- "It is unjust and unfair to deny the Government servant copies of witnesses examined during investigation and produced at the inquiry in support of the charges levelled against the Government servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirements of giving the Government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken" 17. It was further observed that :- "When a Government servant is facing a disciplinary proceeding, he is entitled to be afforded a reasonable opportunity-to meet the charges against him in an effective manner. And no one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies, how can the concerned employee prepare his defence, cross examine the witness, and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible ? It is difficult to comprehend why the disciplinary authority assumed an intransigent posture and refused to furnish the copies notwithstanding the specific request made by the appellant in this behalf." 18. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570 , Hon'ble Supreme Court considering nature of departmental has observed that a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570 , Hon'ble Supreme Court considering nature of departmental has observed that a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties after giving due opportunity to the delinquent employee. In oral enquiry it is mandatory to observe principles of natural justice which is not mere formality. Violation of principles of natural justice cannot justify the order of punishment. 19. In the present case, petitioner had demanded copy of documents but admittedly he was permitted only to inspect the record available in the office. It was without any reason. Neither medical report forming very basis of charge nor any of the statement of witness can be said to be very bulky, by reason of which the enquiry officer could have been allowed to adopt such procedure. If the document was very bulky and there was some difficulty in supply of the same, the delinquent employee could have been allowed to inspect them, but that was not the reason for which the enquiry officer denied copies of relied documents. The delinquent employee require the documents at every stage of enquiry to meet out the charges levelled against him and statement of witnesses. He is not expected to memorise the contents of documents and participation in enquiry. Thus non supply of documents certainly violates the principles of natural justice as he was denied adequate opportunity to defend himself. Hence in view of above we are of the opinion that non supply of documents, that too despite demand, vitiates the entire proceedings. 20. In view of above discussion, the impugned orders of punishment cannot be sustained. Therefore the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 21. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned order of punishment dated 31.07.1993, as well as its appellate order dated 31.10.1995 are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. 22. Since original petitioner i.e. employee has already died, therefore, there is no occasion for giving any opportunity to respondents to proceed with inquiry in accordance with law and we have not passed any order in this regard.