JUDGMENT Hon’ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.—We have heard Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Shri S.V. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri G.P. Srivastava holding brief of Sri Naveen Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8108 of 1999 (Tej Singh v. District Magistrate and others), by which the writ petition was dismissed. 3. The facts of this case in brief are that the services of the appellant-petitioner, while working as Class-IV employee, were terminated by the Principal of the college with effect from 25.3.1990 on account of his being involved in forgery and preparation of forged marks-sheet. In this regard a departmental enquiry committee was constituted consisting of two teachers. Subsequently, First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 472, 473, 474 and 476 IPC, police station Raia, district Mathura. 4. The charge-sheet dated 15.11.1989 was also served upon the appellant-petitioner containing the charges levelled against him. The appellant after receipt of the aforesaid charge-sheet, has sent his reply through registered post. 5. It is submitted that thereafter without fixing any date, time and place, the enquiry was concluded and enquiry report was submitted. After the submission of enquiry report, it appears that second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 6.2.1990, but this too was not responded, and ultimately, petitioner was dismissed from the service. 6. Challenging the order of dismissal, the appellant-petitioner (herein) has filed Writ Petition No. 8108 of 1990 (Tej Singh v. State of U.P. and others) on the ground that the enquiry was conducted and petitioner’s service has been dismissed arbitrarily without following the procedure. In the writ petition, notices were issued. Pursuant thereto, two counter-affidavits have been filed, one by State-respondents and another by Principal of the college. 7. The learned Single Judge after going through contents of the writ petition, counter-affidavits etc., has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was found preparing forged transfer certificate and marks-sheet, and a criminal case under Sections 420, 471 and 468 IPC was also lodged against him and he was sent to jail. 8. 7. The learned Single Judge after going through contents of the writ petition, counter-affidavits etc., has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was found preparing forged transfer certificate and marks-sheet, and a criminal case under Sections 420, 471 and 468 IPC was also lodged against him and he was sent to jail. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the order passed by learned Single Judge has submitted that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Regulations 31, 36 and 37 of Chapter III of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 9. Further, the charge-sheet was very vague, no supporting materials was provided to the petitioner, and the enquiry officer has also not conducted the enquiry and not proved the charges levelled against him. 10. 9. Further, the charge-sheet was very vague, no supporting materials was provided to the petitioner, and the enquiry officer has also not conducted the enquiry and not proved the charges levelled against him. 10. For testing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, it would be appropriate to reproduce the charge-sheet dated 15.11.1989, served upon the petitioner and the report of the enquiry committee as under: ^^lsok esa] Jh rst flag] fuyfEcr prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh vkn'kZ d`"kd mŒekŒ fo|ky;] dkjc ¼eFkqjk½A fo"k;%& vkjksi i= egksn;] vkids i=kad 'kwU;@89&90@fnukad 3-11-89 rFkk le la[;d i= fnukad 15-11-89 ds lUnHkZ esa 'kwU; gS fd vkius dk;ZHkkj x`g.k djkus ds lEcU/k esa fy[kk gSA vki fnukad 22-8-89 ls fuyfEcr gS vkSj 2-11-89 dks vki tsy ls tekur ij NksM+s x;s gSA blfy;s fo|ky; lsok dk;Z@mifLFkfr jftLVj ij gLrk{kj djus dk dksbZ iz'u gh ugha mBrkA vkius pijklh ds :i esa fujarj vfu;fer ,oa vukf/kd`r dk;Z fd;s gSA blls ;g fl) gksrk gS fd vki vius dk;Z ,oa O;ogkj esa ifjorZu u ykdj fujUrj xyr dk;Z djrs vk jgs gSA tks fuEuor gS%& ¼1½ ;g fd 2-8-79 dks vki fo|ky; esa foyEc ls vk;sA 22-8-79 dks vkils dk;Z djus dks dgk x;k ysfdu vkius mls ugha fd;kA ¼2½ ;g fd fnukad 15-10-79 dks vuqifLFkr jgus ds ckn Hkh mifLFkr iaftdk esa tcju gLrk{kj dj fn;s ,slk gh vkius fnukad 8-8-80 dks vuqifLFkr jgus ij 9-8-80 dks mifLFkr iaftdk esa vius gLrk{kj dj fn;sA ¼3½ ;g fd fnukad 12-8-80 dks eFkqjk ds fy;s fo|ky; dk;Z ls tkus dks vkidks vkns'k fn;k ysfdu vius lkbZfdy pykus esa vleFkZrk dk cgkuk cukdj vkns'k dh vogsyuk dhA ¼4½ ;g fd 16-8-83 dks Jh fxjht fd'kksj ds pSd dks fl.MhdsV cSad eFkqjk ls fxjht fd'kksj ds QthZ gLrk{kj dj Hkqxrku izkIr dj fy;k rFkk 20-8-83 dks mDr lUnHkZ esa vkidks fxjrkj dj tsy Hkst fn;k x;kA ¼5½¼v½ ;g fd fnukad 18-4-89 dks vkius fo|ky; dh izcU/k lfefr ds fo:) QthZ Kkiu fudyok;kA ¼c½ ;g fd izcU/k lfefr ds f[kykQ foHkkx dks QthZ f'kdk;r dh mls vkius fdl vf/kdkj ls fd;k rFkk Li"Vhdj.k vkt rd izkIr ugha gqvkA ¼l½ o"kZ 1989 dh ifj"knh; ijh{kk es lfEefyr Nk=ksa ls voS/kkfud :i ls eupkgk /ku dk laxzg fd;k ,slk D;ksa vkSj fdl vf/kdkj ijA ¼n½ iwoZ iz/kkukpk;Z Jh jes'k pUnz ok".ksZ; ij vkius tks okn U;k;ky; eas pyk j[kk gS D;k vki ,slk djus ds fy;s vf/kd`r gS rRlECk/kh Li"Vhdj.k Hkh vkt rd izkIr ugha gqvk gS\ ¼6½ ;g gS fd Fkkuk/;{k jk;k ds i=kad 'kwU; fnukad 25-8-89 }kjk ;g voxr djk;k x;k gS fd 22-8-89 dks vki QthZ VhŒlhŒ cukrs gq;s jaxs gkFk QthZ vad i= fofHkUu laLFkkvksa ,oa dk;kZy;ksa dh QthZ eqgjks ds lkFk ftyk dkjkxkj eFkqjk dks /kkjk 420@467@468 ds vUrxZr iathd`r dj cUnh cukdj Hksts x;sA vkids }kjk ;g rF; Hkh mtkxj fd;k x;k fd vkids }kjk fufxZr QthZ VhŒlhŒ ds vk/kkj ij bl fo|ky; esa Hkh izos'k djk;s x;sA mijksDr rF;ksa ls ;g Li"V tkfgj gS fd vkius fujUrj QthZ ,oa vfu;fer dk;Z fd;s gSA ;g vu/khurk ,oa ?kksj vuq'kklughurk ,oa furkUr tkylkth ds ?kksrd gS D;ksa u vkidks fo;qDr ¼fMLkfel½ dj fn;k tk;s\ mDr fcUnqvksa ij viuk Li"Vhdj.k i= izkIr ds ,d i{k ds vUrxZr nsus dk d"V djsa ugha rks laoS/kkfud dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tk;sxhA fnukad%& 15-11-89 Hkonh; gŒ viBuh; izfrfyfi vko';d dk;Zokgh ,oa lwpuk gsrq iszf"kr%& ¼1½ Jheku ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] eFkqjkA ¼2½ izcU/kd] vkn'kZ] d`"kd mŒekŒ fo|ky;] dkjc ¼eFkqjk½ fnukad%& 15-11-89 Hkonh; gŒ viBuh;** **fjiksVZ tkap lfefr fnukad 5-2-90 LFkku&fo|ky; Hkou fo"k;%& Jh rst flag fuyfEcr prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh] vkn'kZ d`"kd mŒekŒ fo|ky;] dkjc ¼eFkqjk½ ds tkap ds lEcUèk esaA Jh rst flag fuyfEcr deZpkjh ij fuEu vkjksi yxk;sA ¼1½ fnukad 2-8-79 dks fo|ky; foyEc ls vk;s rFkk 22-8-79 dks vkius dk;Z djus ds fy;s euk dj fn;kA ¼2½ fnukad 15-10-79 vkSj 8-8-80 dks fo|ky; esa foyEc ls vk;s vkSj deZpkjh mifLFkr iaftdk ij tcju gLrk{kj dj fn;sA ¼3½ 12-8-80 dks dk;Z ds fy;s eFkqjk tkus dks dgk x;k ijUrq vkius euk dj fn;kA ¼4½ 16-8-83 dks vkius fxjht fd'kksj ds uke dk pSd flUMhdsV cSad eFkqjk ds fxjht fd'kksj cudj Hkquk;k rFkk 20-8-83 dks mDr lUnHkZ esa vkidks tsy Hkst fn;k x;k FkkA ¼5½¼,½ 13-4-89 dks vkius izcU/k lfefr ds f[kykQ QthZ Kkiu fudyok;kA ¼ch½ vkius izcU/k lfefr ds f[kykQ QthZ f'kdk;rs dhA ¼lh½ 1989 ds ifj"knh; ijh{kk esa lfEefyr Nk=ksa ls voS/kkfud :i ls /ku laxzg fd;kA ;g dk;Z vkius fy;s fd;kA ¼Mh½ iwoZ dkŒokŒ iz/kkukpk;Z Jh ok".ksZ; th ds f[kykQ tks okn U;k;ky; esa nk;j fd;k gS mldh vuqefr fdlh mPp vfèkdkjh ls izkIr ugh dh Fkh rFkk u vkt rd bldk Li"Vhdj.k izkIr gqvk gSA ¼6½ 22-9-89 dks vki QthZ VhŒlhŒ ekdZ'khV cukrs gq, vius ?kj jaxs gkFk idM+s x;s rFkk fofHkUu laLFkkvks ,oa dk;kZy;sa dh eqgj ds lkFk /kkjk 420] 467] 468 ds vUrxZr iathd`r dj cUnh cukdj ftyk dkjkxkj eFkqjk dks Hkst fn;k x;kA vU;%& ¼1½ 17-5-89 dks dk;kZy; esa vki tcjnLrh viuk lsok iaftdk dks fyfid ds euk djus ij Hkh fudky ys x;sA ¼2½ vkius ebZ o twu vuqlwfpr tkfr ds Nk=ksa ls 0-66 iSls dh txg 5-50 :i;k izfr Nk= ls olwy fd;k 'kqYd ds :i esaA crk;k vkSj dgk fd eq>s xyr vkjksi i= fn;k gSA fo|ky; dh rjQ ls fnukad 5-2-90 dks Jh jekdkUr 'kekZ] fyfid is'k fd;k x;k vkSj mUgksusa vkjksi i= ds lHkh fcUnqvksa ij viuk lk{; izLrqr fd;kA ftu ij xEHkhjrkiwoZd fopkj djus ds mijkUr Jh rst flag ij yxk;s x;s izR;sd vkjksi dh iqf"V gksrh gSA vr% tkap lfefr dh foospuk fuEu izdkj gS%& uaŒ 1 %& ij of.kZr vkjksi lk{; ds vuqlkj lkfcr gSA uaŒ 2 %& ij of.kZr vkjksi lk{; ds vuqlkj lkfcr gSA uaŒ 3 %& ij of.kZr vkjksi lk{; ds vk/kkj ij lkfcr gSA uaŒ 4 %& ij of.kZr vkjksi lk{; ds vuqlkj lkfcr gSA uaŒ 5, %& ij of.kZr vkjksi lk{; ds vk/kkj ij lkfcr gSA ch %& ij of.kZr vkjksi dks Jh rst flag us vius vusd i=ks eas Loa; Lohdkj fd;k ftlls ;g vkjksi iw.kZr;k lkfcr gksrk gSA lh %& ij of.kZr vkjksi lk{; ds vkèkkj ij lkfcr gSA Mh %& ij of.kZr vkjksi lkfcr gS D;ksafd prqFkZ oxhZ; deZpkjh dks ;g vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS tc rd fd izcU/k lfefr dk vuqeksnu izkIr u gksA uaŒ 6 %& ij of.kZr vkjksi Fkkuk/;{k jk;k ¼eFkqjk½ dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij lkfcr gS fd vkSj bl lUnHkZ es mYys[kuh; gS fd Jh rst flag us tkap ds nkSjku iqfyl }kjk yxk;s x;s vkjkiksa dks ekuk fdUrq mUgksus fuosnu fd;k fd mDr ekeys esa ge ij n;k dh tk; vkSj bl lUnHkZ es mUgksuas dgk fd QthZ dkxtkr dk tkjh djuk dkuwuh vijk/k gSA vU; %& ¼1½ lk{; ds vuqlkj lkfcr gSA ¼2½ lk{; ds vuqlkj lkfcr gSA fu"d"kZ%& mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij ge bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprs gS dh Jh rst flag dks fo|ky; dh lsok esa j[kuk fo|ky; ds fgr esa ugha gSA vr% tkap lfefr ;g flQkfj'k djrh gS fd Jh rst flag dks lsok ls inP;qr dj fn;k tk;A fnukad 5-2-90 Hkonh; ¼1½ jes'k pUnz 'kekZ ¼2½ xaxkjke 'kekZ lhu gŒ viBuh; iz/kkukpk;Z vkn'kZ d`"kd mŒekŒ fo|ky; dkjc ¼eFkqjk½A** 11. It appears that after receipt of the enquiry report, the matter was sent before the Committee of Management and after approval of the Committee of Management, the petitioner has been dismissed from service by the Principal of the College vide order dated 14.3.1990. For appreciation, copy of the dismissal order is reproduced herein-below: ^^lsok esa] Jh rst flag] fuyfEcr deZpkjh] vkŒd`ŒmŒekŒfoŒ dkjc] eFkqjkA fo"k;%& lsok lekIr ds laca/k esaA Jh rst flag th] vkils lacaf/kr lHkh i=koyh dks izcUèkd lfefr dh cSBd esa fnukad 8-2-1990 bZŒ dks izLrqr fd;k rFkk loZlEefr ls vuqeksnu fd;k x;k fd vc fo|ky; ,oa tufgr dks ns[krs gq;s vkidh lsok dks fo|ky; dks vc vkSj vko';drk ugha gSA vr% fnukad 15-3-90 ls vkidh lsok lekIr dh tkrh gSA gŒ@vLi"V Hkonh;] iz/kkukpk;Z vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq lsok esa lwpukFkZ izsf"kr gS %& ¼1½ izcU/kd] vkn'kZ d`"kd mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky; dkjc] ¼eFkqjk½ ¼2½ ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd eFkqjkA gŒ@Li"V fnukad 14-3-90A** 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the materials available on record of the special appeal, counter-affidavit and the writ petition provided by the learned counsel for the appellant. 13. From the perusal of the charge-sheet, we find that the charges are very vague and not definite. Furthermore, charges do not find mention about the materials, which were to be read against the appellant in order to prove the charges. This is not in respect to one charge, but this is in respect to every charge levelled against the petitioner. It also transpires that alongwith charge-sheet neither the papers on which reliance was to be placed in order to prove the charges, nor names of the witnesses in order to prove the charges have been disclosed. 14. Chapter III of the Regulations 36 under Intermediate Education Act 1921, provides that the ground on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the employee charged and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged employee of the facts and circumstances against him. “The word “sufficient indication” will mean that in support of the charges, documentary evidence, the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned with the charge-sheet.” 15. “The word “sufficient indication” will mean that in support of the charges, documentary evidence, the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned with the charge-sheet.” 15. Similar issue was also before the Apex Court for adjudication in different cases. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 , has clearly held that no enquiry can be sustained on a vague charge. For ready reference, para 35 is being quoted herein below : ‘’In view of the above, law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjunctures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct.” 17. This judgement is also again followed and affirmed by the Apex Court in the matter of Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society and others, (2013) 6 SCC 515 . Therefore, in light of decision of Apex Court as well as facts mentioned herein above, it is absolutely clear that the charge-sheet is vague and does not establish any charge, therefore, no enquiry can be proceeded on the basis of that. 18. With reference to the documents on which reliance can be placed during the enquiry proceeding is also subject-matter in different cases before the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the matter of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others, (1999) 2 SCC 10 , has held that no such document may be considered for taking decision which is not mentioned in charge-sheet. For ready reference, para 39 is being quoted herein below : ‘’From the findings recorded separately by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, it would appear that there is a voucher indicating payment of Rs. For ready reference, para 39 is being quoted herein below : ‘’From the findings recorded separately by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, it would appear that there is a voucher indicating payment of Rs. 1000/- to Rajpal Singh, one of the labourers, on 8th of February, 1990. This document was not mentioned in the charge-sheet in which only two documents were proposed to be relied upon against the appellant, namely, copy of the report of S.H.O., Lajpat Nagar dated 5th of March, 1990 against the appellant and the copy of the labourers’ statement. This document has, therefore, to be excluded from consideration as it could not have been relied upon or even referred to by the Dy. Commissioner of Police. Moreover, according to the charge framed against the appellant, payment was made on 22.2.90 and not on 8.2.90 as indicated in the voucher and, therefore, voucher, for this reason also, has to be excluded.” 19. The similar issue again before the Apex Court for consideration in the matter of State of U.P. and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 and Hon’ble Apex Court has held that non disclosure of documents having a potential to cause prejudice to Government servant in the enquiry proceeding would clearly denial of reasonable opportuntiy. For ready reference, para 37 is being quoted herein below; ‘’We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid observations are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Non-disclosure of documents having a potential to cause prejudice to a Government servant in the enquiry proceedings would clearly be denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the charges being enquired into against the Government servant.” 20. Similar view again taken by the Apex Court in the matter of Brij Bihari Singh v. Bihar State Financial Corporation and others, (2015) 17 SCC 541. For ready reference, para 9 is being quoted herein below; ‘’It is well-settled that a person who is required to answer a charge imposed should know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. The delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. The delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. A departure from this requirement violates the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. If the enquiry report is based on merely ipse dixit and also conjecture and surmises cannot be sustained in law.’’ 21. Here, the charges do not find mention of the documentary evidence to be read against the appellant nor list of witnesses etc, which were to be examined in order to prove the charges have been supplied. 22. Furthermore, from the perusal of the enquiry report, we find that the charges levelled against the petitioner, as requires to be proved, have not been proved, as there is nothing about the discussion of the charges and materials considered for proving the charges. 23. It is settled that even in an ex parte enquiry, each and every charges has to be discussed and proved. As it would appears from the perusal of the report of the enquiry officer, nothing has been discussed about the proving of the charge and it has only been stated that the charges are proved. 24. This finds also support from the decision of Apex Court in the matter of the Imperial Tobacco Company of India Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348 . For ready reference Para 4 of the judgment is being quoted herein-below : “4. There can be no doubt in this case that the inquiry was not conducted in the manner required by the Standing Orders of the appellant. Even though Akhileshwar Prasad had withdrawn from the inquiry— whether rightly or wrongly—the inquiry should have been completed and all evidence should have been taken ex parte. Thereafter it was the duty of the branch manager to appraise that evidence and record his conclusion as to what misconduct had been proved and also to decide what punishment he intended to inflict. Thereafter he had to ask the employee what he had to say against the intended punishment and it was only after taking the explanation of the employee as to the intended punishment that he could pass an order punishing him. Thereafter he had to ask the employee what he had to say against the intended punishment and it was only after taking the explanation of the employee as to the intended punishment that he could pass an order punishing him. The fact that Akhileshwar Prasad withdrew from the inquiry at an early stage did not absolve the inquiry officer from concluding the inquiry by taking evidence ex parte. It also did not absolve the branch manager from following the procedure prescribed in Clause 18 (b) (10) of the Standing Orders. Even though Akhileshwar Prasad had withdrawn from the inquiry, the branch manager should have appraised the evidence, recorded his conclusions and the punishment he intended to inflict and should have called upon Akhileshwar Prasad to say what he wanted to say against the intended punishment. It was only thereafter that he could proceed to punish Akhileshwar Prasad. What happened in this case however was that as soon as Akhileshwar Prasad withdrew from the inquiry, it was closed and the branch manager proceeded to pass the order of dismissal which we have already set out above, without seeing that the inquiry was completed and all that was required by Clause 18(b)(10) to be done was done. In the circumstances the labour Court was right in holding that the inquiry which resulted in the dismissal of Akhileshwar Prasad in this case was not a valid inquiry as required by the Standing Orders of the appellant.” 25. In our view, the entire enquiry is farce one and it amount merely an eye wash and not a departmental proceedings for imposing the major penalty against a delinquent employee as intended under the Regulations 31, 36 and 37 of Chapter III under U.P. Intermediate Education, Act, 1921. 26. Furthermore, the disciplinary authority, the Principal had dismissed the appellant-petitioner from the service after approval of Committee of Management, which is not at all required either under Regulations 31, 36 or 37, which is meant for holding the disciplinary proceedings for imposing the major penalty against a delinquent employee otherwise also it has deprived the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, which lies before the Committee of Management in view of the Regulation 31 of this Regulation. 27. 27. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find that the disciplinary proceedings concluded against the appellant is nothing, but an eye wash, as the procedure prescribed for holding the disciplinary proceedings under Regulations 31, 36 and 37 has not been provided. Considering the same, we set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 13.2.2004, and we also quash the order of punishment of dismissal passed by the Principal of the college vide order dated 14.3.1990. 28. The matter is remitted back with a direction to the enquiry committee for service of a fresh charge-sheet in accordance with law and thereafter, conclude the enquiry, expeditiously preferably, within a period of four months from the date of service of charge-sheet. The appellant is also directed to cooperate with the enquiry. 29. The respondents are directed to permit the appellant-petitioner to join on his post and he shall be paid current salary on month-to-month basis. However, arrears of salary is concerned, same shall abide by the outcome of enquiry proceeding. The special appeal succeeds and is allowed.