JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, Sri Kashif Zaidi for Commission and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has questioned the order of punishment imposed upon him by the first respondent on the recommendation of third respondent, in the nature of two annual increments in pay scale consecutively for three years vide order dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition). 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that once the inquiry officer in a departmental inquiry has not found charges, levelled against the petitioner, proved, the inquiry officer wholly illegally on his own framed the third charge and held him guilty in a most cursory manner. The disciplinary authority, according to him, also failed to look into this aspect of the matter and without considering his reply to the show cause notice in a proper manner, obtained recommendation for imposition of penalty (supra) from the third respondent. 4. The argument, therefore, is that the order passed by the disciplinary authority per se illegal, inasmuch as, the recommendations made in favour of the penalty imposed also deserves to be held illegal as a result of wrongful exercise of powers. 5. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner, who is a member of Provincial Civil Services, was posted as District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur during the relevant period. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.07.2002 passed by the first respondent in contemplation of inquiry invoking the provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1999. The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 01.06.2007 framing the following charge: "You were given charge of District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur but you failed to perform duties of the said post and remained absent from duty for a long time and did not file counter affidavits in almost 250 writ petitions instituted before the High Court nor, did you take any care of those cases and have continued to defy the Government and Departmental orders. This conduct of yours is indicative of anarchy and indifferent approach towards official work." 6. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the charge sheet vide letter dated 11.08.2008 by speed post and also appeared before the inquiry officer himself on 04.12.2008. This conduct of yours is indicative of anarchy and indifferent approach towards official work." 6. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the charge sheet vide letter dated 11.08.2008 by speed post and also appeared before the inquiry officer himself on 04.12.2008. The inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer and regarding two legs of charge (a) absence from duty; (b) not filing counter affidavits in writ petitions instituted before the High Court and defiance attitude towards departmental and Government orders. The reply of the petitioner was found satisfactory and so the charges were not proved. However, it appears that inquiry officer proceeded to hold further inquiry on some letters of the District Magistrate, Director of Education (Secondary Education) and Regional Joint Director of Education, Varanasi on the charge that the work and conduct of the charged officer was not cooperative in nature and for such conduct he is guilty. The petitioner was denied cross examination from the officer on the said charge. The petitioner was denied cross examination from the officer on the said charge. It is necessary to reproduce the findings recorded by the inquiry officer in his inquiry report dated 06.05.2009 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) which reads as under: ^^vr% fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds dk;kZy; ls yEch vof/k ls vuqifLFkr jgus dk vkjksi fujk/kkj gSA vipkjh vf/kdkjh ds }kjk ÁLrqr iathd`r i= tks f'k{kk funs'kd ¼ek0½ dks lEcksf/kr rFkkk lfpo ek/;fed f'k{kk mRrj Áns'k 'kklu rFkk la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd] okjk.klh dks i`"Bkafdr i= fnukad 15-06-2002 ls Hkh iw.kZ fLFkfr Li"V gS fd /kjuk lhy ij rRle; fo|eku ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds n`f"Vxr dk;kZy; tk ldus esa vleFkZ jgsA vipkjh vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;k x;k Li"Vhdj.k lUrks"ktud gSA tgkWa rd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa ;ksftr ;kfpdkvksa ¼yxHkx 250 ;kfpdkvksa esa½ Áfr'kiFk i= nkf[ky@ iSjoh ugha djus rFkk 'kklu ,oa foHkkxh; vkns'kksa dh fujUrj vogsyuk djus dk Á'u gS] bl vkjksi ds leFkZu esa vk/kkjHkwr iqf"V lk{; miyC/k ugha djk;s x;sA vr% vipkjh vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;k x;k Li"Vhdj.k Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA ijUrq ftykf/kdkjh] f'k{kk funs'kd ¼ek0½ rFkk e.Myh; la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd] okjk.klh ds i= ls ;g Hkh Li"V :i ls ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd vkjksih vf/kdkjh dk dk;Z ,oa O;ogkj muds lkFk lg;ksxkRed ugha jgk gS] ftlds fy;s ;s nks"kh Árhr gksrs gSaA tgka rd vipkjh vf/kdkjh }kjk vius Li"Vhdj.k ds vfUre ÁLrj esa Jh d`".k ikBd] rRdkyhu la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd] okjk.klh ls Áfr ijh{k.k djus dk Á'u gS] bl laca/k esa voxr djk gS fd lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ dj lsok fuo`Rr gks pqds gSa vc os lsok esa ugha gSA vr% muls fdlh Ádkj dk Áfrijh{k.k] ftjg dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha curkA^^ 7. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.05.2009. It is noticeable at this stage that the show cause notice did not contain any recital regarding the proposed action and only referred to the inquiry report with the note that the inquiry officer has found him guilty on the point that petitioner's work and behaviour with the higher officials was not cooperative and that the petitioner had failed to file counter affidavits in 250 writ petitions instituted before High Court and also failed to take effective care of the case. Petitioner submitted his reply on 26.05.2009 to the show cause notice in which he has raised specifically this ground that the charge on which the petitioner is said to have been found guilty by the inquiry officer, was not there mentioned in the charge sheet and so how on a charge which was not there mentioned in the charge sheet, the inquiry officer was competent to give his finding. 8. In a nut shell, in this reply to show cause, the petitioner is questioning the authority of inquiry officer in giving finding over the third charge which was no where in the charge sheet nor, the petitioner had any opportunity to explain his conduct regarding that. He also raised this point in the reply that he was not offered opportunity to cross examine the officer concerned with whom it was alleged that his behaviour was not proper. The disciplinary authority in its entire order, which runs into four paragraphs, only refers to the findings of inquiry officer but has failed to consider the reply of the petitioner which was submitted as a response to the show cause notice in which he had raised the point with regard to authority of the inquiry officer to frame third charge independent of the charge sheet and to record his finding. The inquiry officer has only referred the reply of the petitioner and thereafter, proceeded to hold him guilty in the light of the charge of not good behaviour and non cooperative approach of the petitioner with his higher officials as recorded by the inquiry officer. There is no independent finding recorded by the disciplinary authority as to how and in what manner he was deferring from the findings of the inquiry officer on the charges mentioned in the charge sheet to the effect that the reply of the petitioner/ charged officer was found to be satisfactory. If we look at the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as has been referred to herein above, we find that as far as the charge having two legs or two prong charges in the charge sheet framed as one charge, we have no doubt to conclude that the inquiry officer did not find the petitioner guilty and, therefore, the petitioner completely stood exonerated from the charges levelled in the charge sheet. In so far as the third charge, which the inquiry officer has referred to with regard to some letter of the District Magistrate, Director of Education, Regional Joint Director of Education, we find that there is no reference of any specific date in which these letters were received by the inquiry officer. It is also not borne out from the record as to whether copies of these letters were supplied to the petitioner and as to whether he was given any opportunity to explain his position. We also find that the charge regarding misbehaviour and non cooperation or dereliction in duty referring to the letters of three officers (supra) are absolutely vague. If a person has committed any misbehaviour with a particular officer and incident is noted that incident should have come in black and white or should have been produced in the form of charge in black and white. In the absence of any specific allegation of misbehaviour on particular date or referring to particular incident, the charge can only be rendered to be too vague to be proved. Moreover, the inquiry officer having recorded himself that no opportunity to cross examine the officer concerned was provided for, as he had retired, the inquiry officer in essence admitted that charge could not have been proved on record. It is a case therefore, in our considered opinion, of no evidence. Although we are conscious of the law that in disciplinary proceedings strict proof in terms of Indian Evidence Act is not required but while recording a satisfaction to bring home charge, in our considered opinion, the inquiry officer is required to refer to specific charge and reply of the delinquent employee so as to give an opinion so definite that a second opinion in that regard could not be possible. There should be definite charge with evidence and cogent and convincing findings thereon sine qua non to bring home the charge in a disciplinary enquiry. 9. Under the circumstances, we are bound to hold that the inquiry officer was not right and justified in framing third charge in a vague manner and that too without referring any particular letter on the basis of which he came to conclude at least prima facie that a case for inquriy was made out. 10. 9. Under the circumstances, we are bound to hold that the inquiry officer was not right and justified in framing third charge in a vague manner and that too without referring any particular letter on the basis of which he came to conclude at least prima facie that a case for inquriy was made out. 10. We find further that the disciplinary authority is vested with a discretion to exercise in matters of disciplinary proceedings in a sense to either accept the findings of the inquiry officer or defer from the same as he may consider objectively the issues involved, their seriousness, the evidence on record and the reply of the delinquent employee, however, in either of the conditions, he is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the reply of the delinquent employee to show cause. The consideration means meaningful consideration and since the disciplinary authority exercises quasi judicial functions, it is expected to deal with the issues raised before him in the reply to the show cause. The law on this count is well settled that the disciplinary authority while imposing a penalty has to record reasons for the same and should pass a well reasoned and speaking order. 11. In the case of Devendra Bhai Shankar Mehta Vs. Rameshchandra Vithal Das Sheth (1992) 3 SCC 473 , the Apex Court has held that the decision of disciplinary authority must appear to reflect that such authority was alive to various aspects of charge and defence pleaded. In such proceedings while an ultimate decision is taken for imposing penalty by the authority, the requirement of proof must be fulfilled in such proceedings and in such process of decision making by the authority, it should appear that the requirement of proof was fulfilled substantially at the end of Inquiry Officer. In a nut shell, the disciplinary authority should view that inquiry officer has taken due care in meticulously scrutinizing and analyzing the evidence on record and materials. Therefore, there must be an independent application of mind by the disciplinary authority to the findings of the inquiry officer. There should be no cut and paste of the finding of the inquiry officer by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority otherwise, such an order is liable to be rendered illegal and such a decision is unsustainable. In the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. There should be no cut and paste of the finding of the inquiry officer by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority otherwise, such an order is liable to be rendered illegal and such a decision is unsustainable. In the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 , the Apex Court has held that where findings are based on no evidence or there is an absence of any findings, such an order is liable to go. 12. In the case of Managing Director, Ecil, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 the court observed thus: "The reason why the right to receive the report of the Inquiry Officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity it the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is the negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings recorded by a third party like the Inquiry Officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer along with the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the findings of the Inquiry Officer do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. In the circumstances, the findings of the Inquiry Officer do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the Inquiry Officer were only to record the evidence and forward the same to the disciplinary authority, that would not constitute any additional material before the disciplinary authority of which the delinquent employee has no knowledge. However, when the Inquiry Officer goes further and records his findings, as stated above, which may or may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings are an additional material unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by the disciplinary, authority while arriving at its conclusion. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary, authority comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the Inquiry Officer's findings. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the Inquiry Officer and the representation of the employee against it." 13. The primary duty of disciplinary authority while imposing the penalty after considering the show cause notice is, to pass a reasoned and speaking order, an order which can be said to have been passed after giving due consideration to the plea raised in reply to the show cause notice. If the order does not contain these basics of a sound administrative/ quasi judicial exercise of power, no amount of an order of appellate authority can be said to have rectified the inherent flaw that has occurred in the root of the matter. 14. Here is even worse case where, though inquiry officer not found the charges proved as detailed out in the charge sheet as he records his own finding that the reply of the delinquent employee was found to be satisfactory and yet in the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority records that the petitioner has been found guilty as far as charge of not filing the counter affidavit in the High Court is concerned. This recital in the show cause notice was itself an erroneous view of the matter by the disciplinary authority and secondly the disciplinary authority was apprised of a fact that the charge of dereliction in duty, non cooperative behaviour with the authority is a new charge which could not have been framed by the inquiry officer on his own and yet, the disciplinary authority did not consider in his order these objections at all. We find that these were the documents that laid the foundation for the Public Service Commission to make recommendation for the penalty to be imposed by the first respondent against the petitioner. Since, the disciplinary authority has only referred to the recommendation of Public Service Commission dated 13.05.2011 as if it was a mere formality to record a concurrence, we are unable to justify the order passed by the Public Service Commission as an order of concurrence to the proposed penalty. We may record that the show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner, copy whereof, was not shown to have been forwarded to the Public Service Commission as is apparent from the pleadings and therefore, we hold even the recommendation of Public Service Commission was not founded on sound reasoning. Since the inquiry officer has found the charges not proved as leveled against the petitioner in the charge sheet dated 01.06.2007 in his inquiry report dated 06.03.2009 and that the disciplinary authority failed to record reasons cogent and convincing to take a view contrary to the findings of the inquiry officer and since we do not find any material on record, brought by the first respondent, to even prima facie demonstrate that there was any letter of the officers before the inquiry officer regarding non cooperation by the petitioner, we do not find it proper to reopen the issue any further. 15. The writ petition therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the first respondent and the recommendation of Public Service Commission dated 13.05.2011 are hereby quashed.