JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. Heard Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.03.2001, passed by the Executive Engineer, Sharda Sahayak Khand-28, Haidargarh, District-Barabanki, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that he has produced a forged caste certificate in respect of his caste. The impugned order categorically provides that the charge-sheet dated 11.01.2000 was issued against the petitioner but he did not receive the same and the department tried his level best to serve the charge-sheet upon the petitioner, but to no avail, therefore, the department got the charge-sheet published in the English Newspaper (Pioneer). 3. As per the impugned punishment order dated 29.03.2001, when the petitioner did not turn up to reply the charge-sheet and also did not turn up before the Inquiry Officer, it was presumed that the charge levelled against the petitioner is true and, therefore, his services were dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the stand taken by the department regarding service of the charge-sheet upon the petitioner is concerned, it is absolutely misconceived inasmuch as when the petitioner was placed under suspension on 07.09.1999, he filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.572 (S/S) of 2001 before this Hon'ble Court, wherein this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order dated 02.02.2001 granting six weeks' time to the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions with further direction of listing this writ petition. By means of order dated 02.02.2001, this Court was pleased to direct that the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance and if no charge-sheet is served upon the petitioner within a period of one month from the order dated 02.02.2001 the suspension order shall stand revoked. 5. If the stand of the authority concerned is considered to be true, for the sake of argument that they tried to serve the charge-sheet dated 11.01.2001 upon the petitioner but he did not receive the same, it could have been filed before the Court by filing affidavit in Writ Petition No.572 (S/S) of 2001 but no attempt for that was made. It clearly reveals that the authority concerned has not taken steps properly to serve the charge-sheet upon the petitioner. It clearly reveals that the authority concerned has not taken steps properly to serve the charge-sheet upon the petitioner. The aforesaid facts may also be seen in the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner served the order dated 02.02.2001 before the authority concerned on 23.02.2001 and it was duly received in the office of the Executive Engineer. The authority concerned could have served the charge-sheet to the petitioner on that date. It appears that the authority concerned was not willing to comply the order of this Court dated 02.02.2001 and despite the charge-sheet having not been served upon the petitioner within stipulated time, the petitioner remained under suspension. This attitude of the authority concerned can't be appreciated. 6. Not only the above, an ex-parte enquiry was concluded against the petitioner on 26.02.2001, as the copy of the original enquiry report was produced before this Court by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Since the enquiry report is dated 26.07.2001 and it has been produced before the Disciplinary Authority later on, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal dated 29.03.2001 within a short span of time without providing a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking explanation as is mandatory under law. 7. The aforesaid facts and circumstances make it crystal clear that this is a case of no enquiry. Even the charge-sheet has not been served upon the petitioner which vitiates the entire departmental enquiry and consequently the impugned punishment order also vitiates. 8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: H.C. Sarin vs. Union of India and others reported in (1976) 4 SCC 765 citing in para-25 of the aforesaid judgment, which is as under:- "25. In the entire background of this case we find a passage occurring at page 803 in the Judgment of Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls in the case of R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex-parte Mughal quite apposite to be quoted. The passage runs thus: 'The rules of natural justice must not be stretched too far. Only too often the people who have done wrong seek to invoke 'the rules of natural justice' so as to avoid the consequences'." 9. The passage runs thus: 'The rules of natural justice must not be stretched too far. Only too often the people who have done wrong seek to invoke 'the rules of natural justice' so as to avoid the consequences'." 9. On the strength of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to be provided an opportunity of hearing before passing the punishment order. 10. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. Dattatray s/o Namdeo Mendhekar and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 612 submitting that if the fake caste certificate is produced by an employee for getting appointment, he is not even entitled for an opportunity of hearing before passing order of punishment. 11. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India and others vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and others reported in (1998) 7 SCC 569 submitting that if the charge-sheet/ show cause notice is not properly served upon the incumbent and thereafter it is published in the Newspaper, it would not suffice the purpose and cannot be said that the punishment order pursuant to the aforesaid charge-sheet is proper. The relevant para-10 of the said judgment is being reproduced here-in-below:- "10. Where the services are terminated, the status of the delinquent, as a Government servant, comes to an end and nothing further remains to be done in the matter. But if the order is passed and merely kept in the file, it would not be treated to be an order terminating services nor shall the said order be deemed to have been communicated. Where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated by issuing a charge-sheet, its actual service is essential as the person to whom the charge-sheet is issued is required to submit his reply and, thereafter, to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. So also, when the show-cause notice is issued, the employee is called upon to submit his reply to the action proposed to be taken against him. Since in both the situations, the employee is given an opportunity to submit his reply, the theory of "Communication" cannot be invoked and "Actual Service" must be proved and established. So also, when the show-cause notice is issued, the employee is called upon to submit his reply to the action proposed to be taken against him. Since in both the situations, the employee is given an opportunity to submit his reply, the theory of "Communication" cannot be invoked and "Actual Service" must be proved and established. It has already been found that neither the charge-sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon the original respondent, Dinanath Shantaram Karekar. consequently, the entire proceedings were vitiated." 12. The law is settled on the aforesaid point that if the department is willing to conduct the departmental enquiry and for that purpose the charge-sheet has been issued, the charge-sheet must have been served upon the incumbent and thereafter the enquiry must have been concluded strictly in accordance with law by seeking the defence reply of the charge-sheet; thereafter the oral enquiry should have been conducted by fixing date, time and place and the incumbent should have been given an opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witness, if any, and the documents should have been proved strictly in accordance with law. 13. 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. (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. (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." 14. In the instant case, the authority concerned has not taken any serious initiative to serve the charge-sheet upon the petitioner despite knowing fully well that one writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.572 (S/S) of 2001 is pending before this Court wherein the order dated 02.02.2001 was passed and the said order was duly served upon the opposite parties by the petitioner but they did not apprise the Court concerned regarding the charge-sheet nor they filed any affidavit annexing therewith the copy of the charge-sheet so that it can be served upon the petitioner through his counsel. 15. Further, the enquiry report dated 26.03.2001 was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order dated 29.03.2001 without providing the second opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law as no show cause notice along with enquiry report was served to the petitioner before passing the punishment order. 16. Looking into the entire facts and circumstances of the issue, I am of the considered view that the impugned punishment order dated 29.03.2001 has been passed without following the due procedure of law. To be more precised, the punishment order has been passed without conducting the departmental enquiry as per settled norms and this is absolute ex-parte departmental enquiry, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. 17. Accordingly, the impugned punishment order dated 29.03.2001, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. 18. To be more precised, the punishment order has been passed without conducting the departmental enquiry as per settled norms and this is absolute ex-parte departmental enquiry, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. 17. Accordingly, the impugned punishment order dated 29.03.2001, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. 18. Since this order is being passed for the reason that the departmental enquiry has not been conducted and concluded against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, therefore, the authority concerned is directed to pass appropriate order in favour of the petitioner reinstating him in service forthwith and is at liberty to conduct the departmental enquiry, if it is so desired, but strictly in accordance with law from the stage of issuance of the charge-sheet. The petitioner is also directed that he shall receive the charge-sheet within a period of fifteen days from the Executive Engineer, Sharda Sahayak Khand-28, Haidargarh, District-Barabanki and shall file his defence reply within a period of one month thereafter. The Disciplinary Authority shall ensure that the departmental enquiry be conducted and concluded against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner would be provided a copy of the enquiry report and he would be afforded an opportunity to submit his explanation to the show cause notice, which may be given to the petitioner along with copy of the enquiry report, if any, and the petitioner shall file his explanation to the show cause notice within the maximum period of one month. The authority concerned, shall thereafter, pass final order and shall intimate the petitioner forthwith. 19. In any case, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The order of the back wages shall be passed by the authority concerned separately after conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings. 20. In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is allowed.