JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava and Sri Ashutosh Shukla holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 25.09.1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 2nd of May, 2002 passed by the Appellate Authority. 3. The facts in brief of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of "Clerk" and he remained in the employment of corporation till passing of the orders impugned, during the above period the petitioner was promoted as Godown Keeper in the year 1997 and while holding the post of Godown Keeper, the opposite parties issued the charge-sheet dated 18.11.1989 and, thereafter, another supplementary charge-sheet dated 1st April, 1991 was also issued. The charge-sheets were duly served on the petitioner. After receiving the charge-sheet dated 18.11.1989 and the additional charge-sheet dated 01.04.1991 the petitioner submitted his reply dated 01.04.1991. 4. After submission of the reply, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted its inquiry report dated 06.12.1996 before the Competent Authority/Opposite Party No.2 and, thereafter, opposite party No.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 13.12.1996 and in response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 17.01.1997. 5. After submission of his reply, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 25.09.1997 (annexure-1 to the writ petition). 6. By means of order dated 25.09.1997 two punishments were awarded; (i) for recovery of Rs.4,18,037.80/- from petitioner and (ii) dismissal of petitioner. 7. Aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 25.09.1997 the petitioner preferred the appeal before the Appellate Authority/Opposite Party No.2 on 29 October, 1997. In the appeal, the petitioner has specifically stated that the Inquiry Officer relied upon ten documents while preparing the report and the said documents were not part and parcel of the charge-sheets nor they were produced during the inquiry nor the same were given to the petitioner and accordingly, the same could not have been considered by the Inquiry Officer or by the disciplinary authority. The report of the Inquiry Officer is against the principle of natural justice as no opportunity was provided to the petitioner with respect to ten documents relied upon by him, the Inquiry Officer. The report of the Inquiry Officer is against the principle of natural justice as no opportunity was provided to the petitioner with respect to ten documents relied upon by him, the Inquiry Officer. The other main ground which was taken before the Appellate Authority, was to the effect that the order of Disciplinary Authority is non speaking/un-reasoned as the Disciplinary Authority failed to appreciate the facts/pleas raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice. No reasons has been assigned for coming to the conclusion before awarding punishment. In the appeal, with respect to the charge No.10 related to criminal case registered against the petitioner it has been specifically stated that in the criminal case the petitioner has been discharged and accordingly, he was not entitled for order of punishment as passed by Disciplinary Authority. 8. The appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 06.05.2002 i.e. annexure-1 to the writ petition. 9. Being aggrieved by order of punishment dated 25.09.1997 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 2nd of May, 2002, the petitioner approached this Court by means of present writ petition challenging the orders impugned broadly on the ground that inquiry report is unsustainable being prepared against the principles of natural justice and order of punishment is a unreasoned order and the appellate authority has not considered the plea raised by the petitioner while passing the order. 10. In response to the writ petition, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 filed the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the opposite parties denied the allegations made in the writ petition specifically stating therein that the documents as demanded demanded by the petitioner were provided to the petitioner and inquiry was conducted as prescribed procedure. With respect to the punishments awarded to the petitioner, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that punishment awarded is just and proper and no interference is required as the order impugned dated 17.01.1997 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 2nd of May, 2002 are reasoned and speaking order and the same were passed after affording proper opportunity of hearing. 11. In reply to the contents of the counter affidavit, the petitioner filed the rejoinder affidavit reiterating the averments made in the writ petition. 12. 11. In reply to the contents of the counter affidavit, the petitioner filed the rejoinder affidavit reiterating the averments made in the writ petition. 12. The opposite parties through supplementary counter affidavit dated 08.05.2015 have also brought some facts on the issue of competence and jurisdiction of Deputy Managing Director. The said issue though raised in the writ petition has not been pressed by the counsel for the petitioner and being so not required to be adjudicated. 13. In clarification to the pleas/pleadings of the writ petition, the petitioner filed the supplementary affidavit dated 22.09.2015 indicating therein the fact pertaining to the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer which were neither provided to the petitioner nor produced during the inquiry proceedings. Relevant paras of the said supplementary affidavit are reproduced below:- "4. That Inquiry Officer has conducted inquiry of his own manner and without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, Inquiry Officer has submitted his report on 06.12.1996. That it is pertinent to mention here that Inquiry Officer has relied the letter of Manager, Technical 1106 dated 8/11-06-1989, letter of Rural Development Agency as 1975 dated 06-11-1989, letter of A.B.Tripathi dated 09.01.1991, letter of Head Quarter dated 27.07.1991, letter of Bhandar-Grah Bhadari, Fatehpur dated 30-11-1992, letter of Prabhari, Fatehpur dated 12-01-1995, letter of Head Quarter dated 01-01-1994, letter of Tilak Dhari Lal Kushwaha, Technical Manager dated 15/16-04-1994, letter of Prem Shanker dated 24-11-1994, letter of Sri Shanker Lal Dated 20-04-1995, letter of Shiv Shanker Prasad Dal Mill dated 15-05-1995, notice of Mahesh Dutt dated 13-07-1995, letter of Manager Technical, Lucknow dated 25-07-1996, letter of Incharge, Fatehpur dated 27-06-1996 and letter of Hari Ram Gupta dated 22-09-1990. 5. That these documents were relied by the inquiry officer during inquiry and same were not part of both Charge Sheet. That it is well settled position of law that Inquiry Officer will not relie any document which are not the part of Charge Sheet same have been relied against the petitioner. Hence the inquiry has been conducted against the principal of natural justice and Inquiry report as well as impugned order dated 25-09-1997 is liable to be set-aside. That all these letters and documents are mentioned in the inquiry report and same have been relied by the Inquiry Officer and have not been given to the petitioner. Hence the Inquiry Officer is perverse." 14. That all these letters and documents are mentioned in the inquiry report and same have been relied by the Inquiry Officer and have not been given to the petitioner. Hence the Inquiry Officer is perverse." 14. The contents of para 4 and 5 of supplementary affidavit mentioned hereinabove have not been disputed by the respondents by means of filing an affidavit. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is challenging the order of punishment dated 25.09.1997 on the main grounds to the effect that; (i) The Inquiry Officer while preparing the inquiry report has considered the documents which were not supplied to the petitioner alongwith charge- sheets nor were produced during the inquiry proceedings. (ii) The Disciplinary Authority/ Opposite Party No. 3 while passing the impugned order of punishment dated 27.09.1997 considered the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 06.12.1996 and did not considered the reply filed by the petitioner dated 09.08.1997. (iii) The order of dismissal dated 25.09.1997 is not a reasoned order and (iv) During enquiry proper opportunity was not provided to the petitioner with respect to ten additional documents considered by the Inquiry Officer, while preparing the Inquiry Report dated 06.12.1996. 16. The grounds as stated by the counsel for the petitioner for assailing the order passed by the Appellate Authority/Opposite Party No.2 dated 2nd of May, 2002 are to the effect that the appellate authority did not considered the facts and grounds taken in the appeal particularly as stated in paras 12, 25 and 26 and grounds 3, 4 and 5 and the Appellate Authority has also not consider the judgment of the trial court dated 18.12.2000 passed in Criminal Case No.1289 of 1992 under Section 409 IPC, whereby, the petitioner was discharged by the Competent Court of the jurisdiction. 17. 17. Per contra, the submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that no interference is required in the instant case as on account of irresponsible behaviour of the petitioner the Department suffered loss of Rs.4,18,037.80/- and the conduct of the petitioner was not up to the mark while holding the post of Godown Keeper and on account of this charge-sheet was issued and, thereafter, Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in accordance with procedure prescribed and after submission of inquiry report, show cause notice as prescribed under the procedure was issued, to which the petitioner submitted its reply and, thereafter, the disciplinary authority/opposite party No.3 passed the order impugned by giving reasons and appellate authority also considered the relevant pleas taken by the petitioner in his reply. Further, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the scope of judicial review in such matter is limited and, accordingly writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. The entire case of the petitioner is based broadly on this two grounds. First ground is that the authorities, disciplinary and appellate, are under legal obligation to consider the entire facts and material on record while passing the impugned orders and only thereafter can record its conclusion and in absence of same the order passed by the concerned authority would be unsustainable. Second ground is that any document, material or evidence relied upon in the departmental proceedings should be made available to the charged official and proper opportunity should be given to the charged official to defend himself. 19. On the first ground, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the principle to the effect that "conclusion should be based on reasons recorded in the order and reasons must show the application of mind." 20. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P: [2012 (30) LCD 1947], the Court has observed as under:- "7. It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion. 8. In Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 , as under: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. 8. In Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 , as under: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached." 9. Referring to the above case law, Apex Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Panjab & Ors (1979) 2 SCC 368 in para 18 said: "We may also indicate, since the High Court saw the file and discovered that the appellant was not brought on the Select List because he was "not found suitable otherwise", that regulation 5 which deals with the preparation of a list of suitable officers provides by Clause 7 that "if in the process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession". While dealing with an identical provision in Clause 5 of regulation 5 of the same Regulations as they stood then, this Court observed in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and Ors. (1973)2 SCC 836 that "rubber-stamp" reasons given for the supersession of each officer to the effect that the record of the officer concerned was not such as to justify his appointment "at this stage in preference to those selected", do not amount to "reasons for the proposed supersession" within the meaning of Clause 5. "Reasons", according to Beg J. (with whom Mathew J. concurred) "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions". The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List. In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another "reason" for not bringing the appellant on the Select List." 10. The Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1915 said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable" 11. In Mc Dermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181 Apex Court referring to Bachawat's Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 4th Edn., pp. 855-56 in para 56 said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions..." 12. Recently the Apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 referring to the judgment in Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) in para 23 said: "Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject-matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two." 13. The Apex Court recently also in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26 in para 68 referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra) said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. The Apex Court recently also in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26 in para 68 referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra) said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge-made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision." 21. In the case of Ram Pal Singh Vs. Director of Agriculture, U.P. and Others :[2012 (30) LCD 843] the Court has observed as under:- "15. It is well settled law that an order passed by an authority should be a reasoned one and the objection taken by a person should be dealt with because reasons are like a live wire which connects the mind of the decision making authority and the decision given by him and if this wire/link is broken i.e. to say no reasons are given in the impugned order then it will not be possible to know as what was going in the mind of the decision making authority on the basis of which he has come to the conclusion and passed the impugned order. 16. In Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, reported in 1971(1) AIIER 1148, it was held that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd.Vs. Crabtress, reported in 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC) it was observed that "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". 17. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the later before Court. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the later before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other worlds, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." So, the impugned orders dated 03.11.1980 (Anneuxre No. 2) is contrary to law, liable to be set aside. 18. In the present case the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.11.1980 (Anneuxre No. 2) filed a statutory appeal before the appellate authority on 20.02.1981 and after lapse of more than a decade only it was informed to him by order dated 16.03.1991 (Anneuxre No. 1) that the appellate authority has rejected the petitioner's appeal after due consideration. In view of the said fact, I am of the considered opinion that the said action on the part of the appellate authority thereby not giving the reasons on which basis the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected is an action which is arbitrary in nature, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because every person/employee has a right under law to know reason on the basis which his case has been rejected, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (1009) 1 SCC (L&S) 806: (2009) 4 SCC 240 ." 22. In the case of Govind Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others :[(2009)2 UPLBEC 1864], this Court has observed as under:- "19. The other aspect of the matter which requires consideration of this Court is that despite specific reply being submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued being along with enquiry report pointing out the infirmities in the procedure followed during department enquiry and despite specific denial of all the charges found proved by the Enquiry Officer, point-wise by the petitioner in his reply running into nearly 80 pages, the disciplinary authority has chosen to ignore the pleas so raised. The matter in which he has dealt with the reply filed by the petitioner shocks the conscious of the Court. The matter in which he has dealt with the reply filed by the petitioner shocks the conscious of the Court. The only relevant paragraph in the order impugned of the disciplinary authority considering the explanation furnished by the writ petitioner is paragraph 6 and the same reads as follows: ^^6- fl) ik;s x;s vkjksiksa ds lEcU/k esa vipkjh vf/kdkjh dks cpko dk vfUre volj nsrs gq;s 'kklu ds dk;kZy; Kki la[;k&3519@38-1-2006&30 MCywŒihŒ@2002] fnukad 21-2-2007 }kjk muls vH;kosnu ekaxk x;kA bl lEcU/k esa Jh xksfoUn yky JhokLro us vius i= fnukad 10-3-2007 }kjk viuk vH;kosnu miyC/k djk;kA tkap vf/kdkjh dh tkap vk[;k] Jh JhokLro ds vH;kosnu dk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkUr ;g ik;k x;k fd Jh JhokLro us vius vH;kosnu esa dksbZ ,slk rF; ugha fn;k gS] tks mUgsa funksZ"k fl) dj ldsA vipkjh vf/kdkjh Jh xksfoUn yky JhokLro ds fo:) fl) vkjksiksa dh xEHkhjrk ftlesa :i;s 26]570-50 dh 'kkldh; foRrh; {kfr Hkh lfEefyr gS] dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s jkT; ljdkj }kjk lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr Jh xksfOkUn yky JhokLro] [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh dks lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA** 20. We record that such unreasoned orders arean anathema to the rule of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and others, (2003) 11 SCC 519 , has held that reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , has explained that reasons are necessary links between the facts and the findings recorded in the administrative orders, which visit a party with evil civil consequences. In absence of reasons such an order cannot be permitted to stand." 23. In the case of Harendra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. : [2013 (5) ALJ 424], this Court has observed as under:- " 5. In absence of reasons having been recorded in support of conclusion drawn by the appellate authority, the order impugned cannot be legally sustained. 7. Valuable rights of the petitioner have been jeopardized because of the order of the appellate authority. The minimum expected from the authority was to have considered the case of the petitioner and that of the District Administrative Committee and to have recorded reasons for disagreeing or agreeing with what had been stated by the petitioner in his appeal. 8. 7. Valuable rights of the petitioner have been jeopardized because of the order of the appellate authority. The minimum expected from the authority was to have considered the case of the petitioner and that of the District Administrative Committee and to have recorded reasons for disagreeing or agreeing with what had been stated by the petitioner in his appeal. 8. It may be stated that the petitioner in his appeal had stated that he had submitted his reply to the charge-sheet with the enquiry officer in person within the time permitted and such reply has not been considered nor nay enquiry has been held in fact thereafter." 24. In the case of Chairman, LIC of India Vs. A Masilamani :[ 2013 (31) LCD 30 ], this Court has observed as under:- 11. The word "consider", is of great significance. Its dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be" Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself, should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority, and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide; Director, Marketing, India Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar, (2006) 11 SCC 147 ; and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2008 SC1771). 25. On the issue of relying upon additional document, settled principle is that if any document, material or evidence is sought be used in an enquiry, the copies of the same must be supplied to the party against whom such an enquiry is held to submit his defence to such additional evidence and in absence of which the enquiry would vitiate being against the principles of natural justice. 26. In the case of S.P. Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank &others [2014(2) ALJ 537], this Court has observed as under:- "12. 26. In the case of S.P. Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank &others [2014(2) ALJ 537], this Court has observed as under:- "12. From the material on record, it is quite clear that the Inquiry officer has taken into consideration the extraneous material and evidence on record by accepting additional documentary evidence from the Bank which was furnished along with their brief and the said documents were also relied by the Enquiry Officer for proving the charge No. 4, though copies of the said additional evidence furnished by the Bank were neither made available to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to submit his defence to the aforesaid additional evidence. It is settled principle that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, the copies of material must be supplied to the party against whom such an enquiry is held. The Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority did not consider this aspect of the matter and expressed their concurrence to the finding of the Enquiry Officer, without applying their independent and free mind. 14. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623 ; State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another; (1998) 6 SCC 651 : (1998 All LJ 2159) and State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236 : (2009) (1) ALJ 257), the Apex Court has emphasized that a proper opportunity must be afforded to a delinquent employee at the stage of the enquiry, after the charge sheet is supplied to the delinquent as well as at the second stage when punishment is about to be imposed on him. Even if, there are no statutory rules which regulate holding of disciplinary inquiry against a delinquent employee, the employer is duty bound to act in consonance with the rules of natural justice as laid down in U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narain Bajpai (1980) 3 SCC 459 . Thus, the assertion of the Bank that there is no violation of any statutory provision or principles of natural justice while conducting the disciplinary proceeding is wholly misconceived and is rejected. The Appellate Authority while considering the appeal of the petitioner failed to appreciate the fact that the Enquiry Officer at the back of the petitioner had proved certain charges without affording any opportunity to controvert the same. The Appellate Authority while considering the appeal of the petitioner failed to appreciate the fact that the Enquiry Officer at the back of the petitioner had proved certain charges without affording any opportunity to controvert the same. Therefore, the order of Appellate Authority is bad in law and cannot be sustained." 27. In the case of Nagendra Nath Tripathi Vs. State Case Service Authority & others [(2013) 4 UPLBEC 3321], this Court observed as under:- 19. It is settled principles of law that any document, material or evidence, which is taken into account for the purposes of passing order of any of major penalties, has to be provided to the delinquent officer and since in the instant case the material available in the letter/report dated 12.7.2005 was never provided to the petitioner neither the said report was given to him, I am of the considered opinion that by not providing the said document/material, the respondents have failed to conform to the principles of natural justice. Assessment of quantum of loss allegedly caused by the petitioner has been done while passing the impugned order of dismissal and recovery against the petitioner on the basis of report submitted on 12.7.2005 which, admittedly, was submitted much after submission of inquiry report dated 9.8.2004 and issuance of show cause notice dated 5.10.2004. 20. In view of the aforesaid finding that the dismissal order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, on this ground alone, the impugned order of punishment deserves to be quashed. 28. In the case of Ram Sajiwan Vs. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service & others [ (2013) 2 UPLBEC 1022 ], this Court observed as under:- 16. Needless to say that although the Enquiry Officer can obtain all information from all channels and sources but under law it is obligatory on his part not to act on any such information unless the person against whom such information or material is being used, is supplied with such information or material. Non-supply of document which forms basis of decision by the disciplinary authority explicit amounts to denial of appropriate reasonable opportunity to the delinquent employee. A document, in case forms part of the enquiry and is considered by the disciplinary authority while passing the order of punishment then any omission to supply such document to the delinquent employee amounts to flagrant violation of principles of nature justice. 29. A document, in case forms part of the enquiry and is considered by the disciplinary authority while passing the order of punishment then any omission to supply such document to the delinquent employee amounts to flagrant violation of principles of nature justice. 29. Considered the pleadings on record, submissions made by counsel for the respective parties and the settled legal position on the issues involved in the case. 30. It is evident from the inquiry report and the charge sheet that the Inquiry Officer while preparing the inquiry report consider the documents other than the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet and additional charge-sheet and the said documents were not supplied to the petitioner during enquiry. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been specifically stated that additional/documents relied upon by the enquiry officer were never supplied to the petitioner and the fact has not been rebutted by the opposite parties. 31. It transpires from the order impugned dated 25.09.1997 that the Disciplinary Authority/Opposite Party No.3 neither consider the contents of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice nor recorded any reason for coming to the conclusion as would appear from the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 25.09.1997 quoted below:- ^^vr% Jh cktisbZ th dks fuxZr vkjksi i= rFkk mudk mRrj ,oa dkj.k & crkvks uksfVl rFkk muls ÁkIr mRrj ,oa tkap ls lEc) vfHkys[kksa ds Hkyh&Hkkafr v/;;u ,oa fopkjksijkUr ;g ik;k x;k fd lquokbZ dk i;kZIr volj Ánku fd;s tkus ds mijkUr Hkh dkj.k crkvks uksfVl ds mRrj esa Jh cktisbZ }kjk ,slk dksbZ u;k rF; vFkok lk{;@Áek.k ÁLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftlls mUgsa fuxZr dkj.k crkvks uksfVl esa ÁLrkfor n.M dks lekIr djus vFkok mls f'kfFky djus@de djus dk dksbZ vk/kkj curk gksA vr% mDr lEcU/k esa lE;d fopkjksijkUr Jh v'kksd dqekj cktisbZ] mi&Hk.Mkj v/kh{kd ¼fuyfEcr½ ds fo:) mijksDrkuqlkj fl) ik;s x;s vkjksiksa dh xEHkhjrk dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fuEufyf[kr vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkrs gSa%& 1- fuEufyf[kr fooj.k ds vuqlkj Jh v'kksd dqekj cktisbZ] mi&Hk.Mkj v/kh{kd ij muds }kjk fuxe dks igq¡pkbZ xbZ {kfr :i;s 4]18]037-80 ¼:i;k pkj yk[k vV~Bkjg gtkj lSafrl iSlk vLlh½ ek= dh ÁfriwfrZ muds Hkouksa ,oa ifjlEifRr;ksa ls olwyh djds yh tk;sA** 32. It reveals from the order of Appellate Authority dated 06.05.2002 that the Appellate Authority did not considered the pleas raised by the petitioner in his appeal, particularly, the plea taken in Para 25 and 26, which relates to the additional documents considered by the Enquiry Officer, which were never part of disciplinary proceedings, while preparing the inquiry report and the plea that the order of punishment is not a speaking order taken in grounds 3, 4 and 5. 33. Considering the entirety of the case and I am of the view that the inquiry report suffers from procedural irregularity, the impugned order of punishment dated 25.09.1997 is un-reasoned and the Appellate Authority has also failed to consider the relevant pleas as mentioned hereinabove of the petitioner while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. 34. On the basis of conclusion reached, this Court feels that the orders impugned are liable to be interfered. 35. Accordingly, the orders impugned dated 25.09.1997 and 2nd of May, 2002 are hereby quashed. The punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was major punishment and the impugned orders have been interfered on technical ground, as such the matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed afresh from the date of submitting the reply to the charge-sheet by the petitioner and complete the inquiry proceeding and pass final order expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order positively. 36. Considering one aspect of the judgment of the trial court passed in criminal case in favour of the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to plead this aspect of the case before the Competent Authority/Inquiry Officer by filing additional reply to the charge-sheets given to the petitioner. 37. With the above observations, writ petition is allowed.