JUDGMENT : Irshad Ali, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shree Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Anil Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of dismissal dated 10.4.2014 passed by the respondent No.3, contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has further been prayed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary from the date of dismissal i.e. 10.4.2014. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was granted appointment on Class-III post (Godown In-charge) in U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.9.2013 and was attached to the District Office at Lucknow. 4. A charge-sheet dated 2.11.2013 was served upon the petitioner on 6.11.2013. The petitioner submitted an application on 7.11.2013 and 9.11.2013 requesting therein to supply the documents referred in the charge-sheet and reminder letter was also sent on 13.11.2013. The Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 14.11.2013 furnished 2 documents, but refused to supply the copy of the letter issued by the District Magistrate. 5. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 21.11.2013, whereby the petitioner denied all the charges and gave names of 9 persons, who were desired to be cross-examined by the petitioner. The petitioner also requested for documents which have been prepared behind the back of the petitioner with the request to cross-examine the Officers who have prepared the documents. 6. The request of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses was disallowed vide letter dated 17.12.2013 on the ground that point of cross-examination has not been mentioned and thereafter, without fixing date, time and place, the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted it to the disciplinary authority. 7. The disciplinary authority issued show-cause notice along with the enquiry report dated 30.1.2014. 8. The petitioner submitted reply of the show-cause notice on 21.2.2014, stating therein that the whole enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is contrary to the provisions contained under U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 (in short, "Rules of 1992"), prescribing procedure to conduct the enquiry. 8. The petitioner submitted reply of the show-cause notice on 21.2.2014, stating therein that the whole enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is contrary to the provisions contained under U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 (in short, "Rules of 1992"), prescribing procedure to conduct the enquiry. The petitioner was required to appear in person before the Managing Director on 20.3.2014, where he required to submit his written statement, but the disciplinary authority without permitting the petitioner to file written statement, passed the impugned order dated 10.4.2014, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. 9. Assailing the impugned order, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without providing the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet and without permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, without fixing date, time and place for personal hearing, enquiry was conducted and impugned order was passed, which vitiates in law. It is the Enquiry Officer who had to prove charges levelled against the petitioner by adducing evidence, giving opportunity to the petitioner and permit cross-examination of the witness to nullify the documentary evidence by adducing such evidence as may be necessary, but the said opportunity has not been provided to the petitioner, thus, his submission is that entire proceeding vitiates in law. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the law is settled that enquiry is not to be a mere formality and deviation from the established procedure which caused serious prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, in utter disregard of the provisions contained under the Rules of 1992, has proceed to conclude the enquiry proceeding against the petitioner. He further submitted that it is settled proposition of law that regular enquiry should be concluded by providing opportunity to the delinquent employee to submit his reply and thereafter, prosecution has to lead oral evidence to substantiate with due opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. After conclusion of the statement of the prosecution witnesses, liberty should be given to the delinquent employee to lead evidence in defence. Burden to prove the charges in accordance with law rest on the shoulder of the prosecution. Delinquent employee may avail the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses even if the delinquent employee does not ask for. It shall be incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to record the statements of the witnesses to substantiate the charges. Burden to prove the charges in accordance with law rest on the shoulder of the prosecution. Delinquent employee may avail the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses even if the delinquent employee does not ask for. It shall be incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to record the statements of the witnesses to substantiate the charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case, this opportunity has not been provided to the petitioner, thus, the order is not sustainable in law. 11. His next submission is that it is expected from the opposite parties, being the instrumentality of the State to act in fair and proper manner for the welfare of its employees. In the present case, the petitioner has been denied the Right to Protection, provided under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in utter disregard of the provisions enshrined under the Rules of 1992, the disciplinary proceeding has been concluded against the petitioner, thus, the impugned order being illegal and arbitrary, requires interference of this Court. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents tried to substantiate the conclusion of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and ultimately admitted that no proper enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner. The petitioner has neither been provided personal hearing, nor has been provided opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. 13. After having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record and the submission advanced on behalf of the respective parties. 14. The petitioner has neither been provided personal hearing, nor has been provided opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. 13. After having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record and the submission advanced on behalf of the respective parties. 14. To resolve the controversy involved in the present writ petition, the Rule 35 of U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 is relevant, which is being quoted below: ^^xq:rj 'kkfLr;ka ¼Hkkjh n.M½ vf/kjksfir djus dh dk;Zfof/k 35¼1½ fu;e 33 ds [k.M¼M½¼p½ vkSj ¼N½ esa ;Fkk fufnZ"V fdlh Hkh xq:rj 'kkfLr ds vf/kjksi.k dk dksbZ Hkh vkns'k bl fu;ekoyh ds vuqlkj tkap vk;ksftr fd;s fcuk tkjh ugha fd;k tk;sxkA ¼2½ tc dHkh vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh dk ;g er gks fd deZpkjh ds fo:) dnkpkj ;k nqO;Zogkj ds fdlh vkjksi.k dh lR;rk dh tkap ds fy;s vk/kkj gS og mldh tkap Lo;a dj ldrk gS ;k fdlh yksd lsod dks ¼ftls vkxs tkap vf/kdkjh dgk x;k gS½ mldh lR;rk dh tkap djus ds fy;s fu;qDr dj ldrk gSA ¼3½ tgka dksbZ tkap fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gks rks vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh deZpkjh ds fo:) vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij fuf'pr vkjksi yxk;sxkA vkjksiksa ds lkFk gh lkFk mu vfHkdFkuksa ftu ij os vk/kkfjr gksa] dk fooj.k] mu vfHkys[kksa dh lwph ftuds }kjk rFkk mu lkf{k;ksa dh lwph ftuds }kjk yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks fl) fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gS] fyf[kr :i esa laizsf"kr dj deZpkjh dks nh tk;xh] ftlls vis{kk dh tk;sxh fd og vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk ;Fkk fufnZ"V le;¼tks 15 fnu ls vf/kd u gksxk½ ds Hkhrj ,d fyf[kr c;ku izLrqr djsxk fd og vkjksiksa ds vuqPNsnksa ds fdUgh ;k lHkh vuqPNsnksa dks Lohdkj djrk gS ;k vLOkhdkj djrk gSA bl Lrj ij vkjksi&i= ds lkFk lwphc) vfHkys[kksa ;k vU; fdlh vfHkys[k dks deZpkjh dks fn[kkuk vko';d ugh gksxkA ¼4½ deZpkjh dk fyf[kr Ck;ku izkIr gksus ij ;k ;fn ,slk c;ku fofufnZ"V le; ds Hkhrj izkIr ugh gksrk rks vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk Lo;a] ;k mi [k.M&2 ds vUrxZr tkap vf/kdkjh ds :i es fu;qDr fdlh yksd lsod ds }kjk tkap djk;h tk ldrh gSA ijUrq deZpkjh }kjk vius fyf[kr c;ku esa Lohdkj fd;s x;s vkjksiksa ds lEcU/k esa tkap fd;k tkuk vko';d u gksxkA rFkkfi vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh ,sls izR;sd vkjksi ij vius fu"d"kksZa dks vfHkfyf[kr djsxkA ¼5½ tgka vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh Lo;a tkap djrk gS ;k tkap djus ds fy;s tkap vf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrk gS og ,d vkns'k }kjk vkjksi i= ds vuqPNsnksa dh iqf"V esa mldh vksj ls okn izLrqr djus ds fy;s fdlh yksd lsod dh fu;qfDr djsa ftls miLFkkiu vf/kdkjh dgk tk;sxkA ¼6½ deZpkjh fdlh vU; yksd&lsod dh lgk;rk ys ldrk gS fdUrq og bl iz;kstu ds fy, fdlh fof/k O;olk;h dks ugha j[k ldrk gSA ¼7½ tkap izkf/kdkjh }kjk fu;r dh x;h frfFk ij uksfVl esa fofufnZ"V ds le{k mifLFkr gksxkA tkap izkf/kdkjh deZpkjh ls ;g iwNsxk fd D;k og vkjksi ds vuqPNsnksa esa ls fdUgha es viuk nks"k Lohdkj djrk gS] tkap izkf/kdkjh nyhyksa dks vfHkfyf[kr djsxk] vfHkys[k ij gLrk{kj djsxk] vkSj ml ij lacaf/kr deZpkjh ds gLrk{kj djk ysxkA tkap izkf/kdkjh vkjksi i= ds mu vuqPNsnksa] ftuesa lacaf/kr deZpkjh us nks"k Lohdkj fd;k gS ds ckjs esa vius nks"k fo"k; fu"d"kZ izLrqr djsxkA ¼8½ ;fn deZpkjh viuk nks"k Lohdkj ugh djrk gS rks tkap izkf/kdkjh ;g vkns'k vfHkfyf[kr djus ds i'pkr ekeys dh vkxkeh frfFk ds fy, tks rhl fnu ls vf/kd u gks] LFkfxr dj nsxk] fd deZpkjh vius cpko dh rS;kjh ds iz;kstukFkZ] ¼1½ vkjksi i= ds lkFk lwphc) nLrkostksa dk fujh{k.k dj ldrk gSA ¼2½ ,sls vfrfjDRk nLrkostksa vkSj lkf{k;ksa dh lwph izLrqr dj ldrk gSA ftudk og ijh{k.k djuk pkgrk gS] rFkk ;g fd ¼3½ mls vkjksi i= us lwphc) lkf{k;ksa] ;fn dksbZ gksa] ds c;kuksa dh izfrfyfi;ka ns nh tk;aA fVIi.kh%& lEcfU/kr deZpkjh }kjk miZ;qDr mi[k.M 8¼nks½ esa mfYyf[kr vfrfjDr nLrkostksa vkSj lkf{k;ksa dh izklafxdrk crkuh gksxh] rFkk ;fn tkap izkf/kdkjh tkap ds v/khu vkjksiksa ds izfr mudh lqlaxfr ls larq"V gS rks og mu nLrkostksa rFkk lkf{k;ksa dk vkgwr fd;k tk,xkA ¼9½ tkap izkf/kdkjh ml vf/kdkjh ls ftldh vfHkj{kk ;k dCts es nLrkost j[ksa gS mlls fofufnZ"V dks nLrkostksa dks is'k djus ds fy, dgsxkA ¼10½ ftl izkf/kdkjh dh vfHkj{kk ;k dCts esa vf/k;kfpr nLrkost gS] og mUgsa ekax i= esa fofufnZ"V fnukad] LFkku vkSj le; ij tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr fd;s tkus dh O;oLFkk djsxkA ijUrq ;fn ,sls nLrkostksa dh izLrqfr lkoZtfud fgr ;k fuxe@ dEiuh ds fgr ds fo:) gks rks ftl izkf/kdkjh ds vfHkj{kk ;k dCts es vf/k;kfpr nLrkost j[ks gS] og fo'ks"kkf/kdkj dj nkok dj ldrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa og tkap izkf/kdkjh dks rnuqlkj lwfpr dj nsxkA ¼11½ tkap ds fy, fu/kkZfjr fnukad dks ,sls ekSf[kd vkSj nLrkosth lk{; ftuds }kjk vkjksiksa dks fl) fd;s tkus dk izLrko gS] vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk ;k mldh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s tk;saxsA miLFkkiu izkf/kdkjh }kjk ;k mldh vksj ls lkf{k;ksa dk ijh{k.k fd;k tk;sxk vkSj deZpkjh }kjk vFkok mldh vksj ls mudk izfr ijh{k.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA miLFkkiu vf/kdkjh dks mu fcUnqvks ij ftu ij lkf{k;ksa dk izfrijh{k.k fd;k tk pqdk gks mudk iquZijh{k.k djus dk ge gksxk] fdUrq og tkap izkf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ds fcuk fdlh u;s fo"k; esa iquZijh{k.k ugha djsxkA tkap vf/kdkjh lkf{k;ksa ls ,sls iz'u Hkh dj ldrk gS ftUgsa og mi;qDr le>sA ¼12½ vfHk;kstu okn lekIr djus ds igys tkap izkf/kdkjh vius foosdkuqlkj miLFkkiu vf/kdkjh dks ,sls lk{; izLrqr djus dh vuqefr ns ldrk gS tks vkjksi i= esa lekfo"V u gks vFkok Lo;a Hkh u;k lk{; izLrqr fd;s tkus dh ekax dj ldrk gS vFkok fdlh lk{kh dks iqu% cqyk ldrk gS ;k mldh iqu% ijh{k.k dj ldrk gSA ,slh n'kk esa nLrkosth lk{;ksa dks vfHkys[k ds :i esa xzg.k fd;s tkus ls iwoZ deZpkjh dks mudk fujh{k.k djus vFkok bl izdkj cqyk;s x;s fdlh lkFkh dk izfrijh{k.k djus dk volj fn;k tk;sxkA ¼13½ ekeys esa vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh dk dk;Z lekIr gksus ij deZpkjh ls vius cpko gsrq ekSf[kd ;k fyf[kr] tSlk og pkgs] c;ku nsus dh vis{kk dh tk;A ;fn cpko gsrq fn;k x;k c;ku ekSf[kd gS] rks mls ys[kc) fd;k tk;sxk vkSj deZpkjh ls ml vfHkys[k ij gLrk{kj djkuk vko';d gksxkA nksuksa gh n’kkvksa es cpko dh ,d izfr fu;qDr miLFkkiu vf/kdkjh] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks nh tk;sxhA ¼14½ blds ckn deZpkjh dh vksj ls lk{; izLrqr fd;k tk,xkA deZpkjh Lo;a Hkh ijh{k.k dj ldrk gS vFkok ;fn og pkgs rks mi&fue 32¼6½ esa nh x;h O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj viuh vksj ls ijh{k.k ds fy;s fdlh vU; deZpkjh dh lgk;rk ys ldrk gSA blds mijkUr deZpkjh }kjk izLrqr lkf{k;ksa dk ijh{k.k gksxk vkSj muds izfri`PNk] iqu% i`PNk dh tk,axh rFkk lkf{k;ksa ds izfr iz;ksT; micU/k ds vuqlkj tkapdrkZ izkf/kdkjh }kjk vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh ds fy, mudk ijh{k.k fd;k tk ldsxkA ¼15½ deZpkjh }kjk viuk oknh lekIr djus ds i’pkr tkapdrkZ izkf/kdkjh] lkekU;r;k mlls mu ifjfLFkfr;kas ds ckjs es iwN ldrk gS] vkSj ;fn deZpkjh us Lo;a ijh{k.k u fd;k gks rks vo’; iwNsxk] tks lk{; esa muds fo:/k izrhr gksrh gS ftlls deZpkjh lk{; esa vius fo:/k izrhr gksus okyh fdUgha ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks Li"V dj ldsA ¼16½ lk{; ds izLrqrhdj.k iw.kZ gksus ds i’pkr deZpkjh vkSj miLFkkiu vf/kdkjh vius vius okn dk laf{kIr fooj.k fyf[kr :i esa lk{; dh izLrqfr iw.kZ gksus dh frfFk ls 15 fnu ds Hkhrj nkf[ky dj ldrs gSaA ¼17½ ;fn deZpkjh mi&fue¼3½ esa fufnZ"V izfrokn dk fyf[kr c;ku bl iz;kstu ds fy, fofuZ"V fnukad dks ;k mlls iwoZ izLrqr ugha djrk] vFkok Lo;a ;k lgk;d vf/kdkjh ds ek/;e ls mifLFkr ugha gksrk gS vFkok vU;Fkk pwd tkrk gS ;k mu fu;eksa ds fdlh micU/k dk vuqikyu djus ls bUdkj dj nsrk gS] rks tkapdrkZ izkf/kdkjh tkap es ,d&i{kh; fu.kZ; dj ldrk gSA ¼18½ tc Hkh fdlh tkapdrkZ izkf/kdkjh }kjk fdlh tkap es lk{; dh iw.kZ ;k vkaf’kd lquokbZ djus vkSj mls vfHkfyf[kr djus ds i’pkr mles mldh vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx lekIr gks tkrk gs vkSj mldk LFkku nwljk tkapdrkZ izkf/kdkjh vius iwoZorhZ }kjk bl izdkj vfHkfyf[kr lk{; ij vFkok va’kr% vius iwoZorhZ }kjk vfHkfyf[kr vkSj va’kr% Lo;a vius }kjk vfHkfyf[kr lk{; ij dk;Z dj ldrk gSA ijUrq ;fn mRrjorhZ tkpadrkZ izkf/kdkjh dk ;g er gks fd U;k; ds fgr esa fdUgh lkf{k;ksa ftudk lk{; igys vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj vf/kd ijh{k.k vko’;d gS rks og blesa igys fn, gq, micU/kksa ds vuqlkj fdUgha ,sls lkf{k;ksa dks iqu% vkgqr djus ¼19½¼,d½ tkap iw.kZ gksus ds i’pkr fjiksVZ rS;kj dh tk,xh ftlesa fuEufyf[kr ckr lekfo"V gksaxh%& ¼d½ vkjksi ds vuqPNsnksa vkSj dnkpkj ;k nqO;Zogkj ds vkjksi.k ds vfHkdFku dk lkj] ¼[k½ vkjksi ds izR;sd vuqPNsn ds lEcU/k esa deZpkjh ds izfrokn dk lkj] ¼x½ vkjksi ds izR;sd vuqPNsn ds lEcU/k esa lk{; dk ewY;kadu] ¼?k½ vkjksi ds izR;sd vuqPNsn dk fu"d"kZ vkSj muds fy, rdZA Li"Vhdj.k%& ;fn tkapdrkZ izkf/kdkjh dh jk; esa tkap dh dk;Zokgh es vkjksi dk dksbZ vuqPNsn] vkjksi ds ewy vuqPNsn ls fHkUu izekf.kr gksrk gS] rks og vkjksi ds ,sls vuqPNsn ij vius fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr dj ldrk gS% ijUrq vkjksi ds ,sls vuqPNsn ij fu"d"kZ rc rd vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd;k tk;sxk tc rd fd deZpkjh us ;k rks mu rF;ksa dks ftuij vkjksi dk ,slk vuqPNsn vk/kkfjr gs Lohdkj u dj fy;k gks vFkok mls vkjksi ds ,sls vuqPNsn ds fo:) viuk cpko djus dk ;qfDr;qDr volj u izkIr gks x;k gksA ¼nks½ tkapdrkZ izkf/kdkjh] tgka og Lo;a gh vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh u gks] tkap ds vfHkys[kksa dks vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh dks vxzlkfjr dj nsxk] blesa fuEufyf[kr phtsa lfEefyr gksaxh %& ¼d½ muds }kjk mi;qZDr mi&[k.M ¼,d½ ds v/khu rS;kj dh x;h tkap dh fjiksVZ] ¼[k½ mi&fue¼13½ esa mfYyf[kr deZpkjh }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k cpko dk fyf[kr c;ku] ;fn dksbZ gks] ¼x½ tkap ds nkSjku izLrqr fd, x;s ekSf[kd vkSj nLrkosth lk{;] ¼?k½ mi&fue¼16½ esa fufnZ"V fyf[kr laf{kIr fooj.k ;fn dksbZ gks vkSj] ¼M½ vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkjh vkSj tkapdrkZ izk/khdkjh }kjk fn;s x;s tkap ls lEcfU/kr vkns’k] ;fn dksbZ gksaA^^ 15. Rule 35 of the U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 prescribes full fledged procedure to conduct enquiry against an employee of the department. On perusal of the material on record, it is well established that the Enquiry Officer while holding the enquiry against the petitioner has violated the provisions and has not provided ample opportunity as has been prescribed under the aforesaid rules, therefore, the rule of natural justice in conducting the enquiry has been violated. 16. The issue in regard to violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as in regard to fixing of date, time and place to provide opportunity of hearing as well as permission to accord cross- examination of the witnesses came for consideration before this Court in the following cases: (i) This Court in Subhas Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000(1) UPLBEC 541 , said:- "In our opinion after the petitioner replied to the charge-sheet a date should have been fixed for the enquiry and the petitioner should have been intimated the date, time and place of the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should have been led in his presence and he should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him and also he should have been given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner in response to this intimation had failed to appear for the enquiry then an ex parte enquiry should have been held but the petitioner's service should have not been terminated without holding an enquiry. In the present case it appears that no regular enquiry was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet he was given a show-cause notice and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. In our opinion this was not the correct legal procedure and there was violation of the rules of natural justice. Since no date for enquiry was fixed nor any enquiry held in which evidence was led in our opinion the impugned order is clearly violative of natural justice." (ii) In the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported (2010) 2 SCC 772 the Hon'ble Apex Court held 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 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. 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 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." (iii) Similar view was taken in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 as under:- "Indisputably, 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. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence." (iii) Recently the entire law on the subject has been reviewed and reiterated in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has culled out certain principles as under: "(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has culled out certain principles as under: "(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any." 17. On perusal of record, it is reflected that a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, who submitted an application requesting therein to supply the documents referred in the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer furnished 2 documents, but refused to supply the copy of the letter issued by the District Magistrate. 18. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that the Enquiry Officer has not provided opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, no date, time and place was fixed for oral hearing nor was provided the demanded documents to submit his appropriate reply to the Enquiry Officer. 19. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents have also admitted the fact that no proper enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. He was not provided personal hearing nor was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses relied upon. 20. 19. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents have also admitted the fact that no proper enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. He was not provided personal hearing nor was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses relied upon. 20. In view of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents and the material on record, it is well established that the rules of natural justice have been seriously violated in the case of the petitioner, therefore, the order of dismissal being based on ex-parte enquiry report and in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 21. On overall consideration of provisions contained under U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 and on perusal of the record, this Court records that the impugned order is in violation of rules of natural justice as well as in violation of the provisions contained in U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 22. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.4.2014 is hereby set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 23. The opposite parties are at liberty to initiate fresh enquiry proceeding, if permissible, and conclude the same in accordance with the provisions of U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 and pass appropriate, reasoned speaking order on conclusion of proceedings within a period of 4 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.