JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Sri R.C. Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Sri Ram Prasad Jaiswal-petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 21st June, 2008 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow, whereby 5% of the pension has been deducted as punishment for committing certain financial irregularities while working as Divisional Accountant. Later on, through amendment, petitioner has also assailed the order dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid punishment. 3. The main contention of the petitioner’s Counsel is that the disciplinary proceedings were concluded immediately after submission of reply to the show-cause notice dated 28th December, 2007 without fixing any date, time and place of inquiry by the Inquiry Committee and straight away punishment order has been inflicted upon the petitioner by the Competent Authority. Neither any opportunity to examine the witnesses was afforded to the petitioner nor the department had examined any witness to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Chairman & Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, who rejected the appeal without assigning any reason with a cryptic order. It has been vehemently argued that as the inquiry proceedings were conducted in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice, it vitiates all further actions including the order of punishment. As regard the appellate order, it has been urged that same is also not sustainable as neither pleas raised by the petitioner have been dealt with in any manner nor the appellate authority has applied its independent mind upon the materials brought on record. 5. Refuting the allegations of the petitioner, learned Counsel for the Corporation has submitted that as per inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Committee, the petitioner has been given proper opportunity of personal hearing and statement of the petitioner was also recorded. It has further been submitted that the department had constituted the Inquiry Committee, which is the body of experts for conducting the regular disciplinary proceedings against the erring officer/officials of the department. 6. It has further been submitted that the department had constituted the Inquiry Committee, which is the body of experts for conducting the regular disciplinary proceedings against the erring officer/officials of the department. 6. The crucial question that remains to be adjudicated is whether principles of natural justice have been violated; and if so, to what extent any what prejudice has been caused. 7. It may be noted at this juncture that in some cases, it has been observed that where grant of opportunity in terms of principles of natural justice do not improve the situation, ‘useless formality theory” can be pressed into service. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. The expressions ‘natural justice” and ‘legal justice” do not present a water-tight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. 8. The Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized for observance of the principles of natural justice. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 , the Supreme Court propounded in clear words that it is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer the charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an inquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled, if the result of the inquiry is to be accepted. 9. Again in the case of State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158 , the Supreme Court held that omission to give opportunity to an employee to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. 10. 9. Again in the case of State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158 , the Supreme Court held that omission to give opportunity to an employee to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. 10. It would be useful to mention that In Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others; (1986)3 SCC 229 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that 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 the concerned employee cannot prepare his defence, cross-examine the witnesses and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible. Observance of natural justice and due opportunity have been held to be an essential ingredient in disciplinary proceedings and following these principles, the Apex Court set-aside the order of removal. 11. This Court in the case of Om Pal Singh v. District Development Officer, Ghaziabad and others, 2000(18) LCD 1239, has held that even if the delinquent employee has not appeared, the charges could be held proved only after examination of witnesses and production of record to support the allegations. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., 2003 (21) LCD 610, held that 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 so fixed the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence. Thereafter the employer must adduce his evidence first. 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. The person who is required to answer the charge must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination, as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. 13. The person who is required to answer the charge must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination, as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. 13. In State of Haryana v. Ram Pal, 2005 SCC 347 , the Apex Court also underlined the need for giving reasons. In para 10 of the decision the Apex Court observed that “reason is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same it become lifeless. 14. In Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. and others, (2010) 10 SCC 539 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that enquiry is to be conducted fairly and reasonably and enquiry report must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion that charge framed against delinquent stood proved against him. It cannot be ipse dixit of enquiry officer. Punishment for misconduct can be imposed in consonance with statutory rules and principles of natural justice. 15. In D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries; (1993) 3 SCC 259 , the Apex Court while laying emphasis on affording opportunity by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action held that orders affecting the civil rights or resulting civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court concluded as under : “The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14. The procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. Article 14 has a pervasive procedural potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.” 16. In the case of State of U.P. and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that 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. In the case of State of U.P. and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that 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 un-rebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved and when a departmental enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The inquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a 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. 17. It may be observed that application of mind brings reasonableness not only to exercise of power but to the ultimate conclusion also. Application of mind in turn is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind. And disclosure is best demonstrated by recording reasons in support of the order or conclusion. 18. Thus, the recording of reasons in cases where the order is subject to further scrutiny is very important from yet another angle. An appellate Court or the authority ought to have the advantage of examining the reasons that prevailed with the Court or the authority making the order. Conversely, absence of reasons in an order deprives the appellate Court or the authority of that advantage and casts an onerous responsibility upon it to examine and determine the question on its own. 19. A perusal of the appellate order shows that no reasons have been assigned for rejection of the Appeal and the only reason assigned is that no new fact has been brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority. 19. A perusal of the appellate order shows that no reasons have been assigned for rejection of the Appeal and the only reason assigned is that no new fact has been brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority. On the contrary, the memo of Appeal, which has been annexed alongwith the writ petition, the petitioner apart from various pleas has also brought the legal position to the notice of the Appellate Authority that an employee cannot be punished on mere suspicion without proper and cogent proof of his allege lapses or misconduct. The Appellate Order is silent on this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the appellate order is also legally not sustainable. 20. After having carefully examined the material on record and the decisions, referred to above, I am fully satisfied that inquiry proceedings were conducted in utter disregard of the Principles of natural justice as such the impugned punishment dated 21.6.2008 and the Appellate Order dated 31.8.2009 suffers from serious infirmities and is liable to be quashed. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and both the aforesaid orders are hereby quashed. The amount deducted, if any from the pension of the petitioner pursuant to impugned order dated 21.6.2008, shall be refunded to the petitioner within three months.