JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rohit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Challenging the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the opposite party No.4 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service, which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically submitted in paras-3, 15 and 23 of the writ petition that during the course of departmental inquiry, no date, time and place was fixed and the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of oral hearing to defend the allegations, to examine/ cross-examine the witnesses etc. In the counter affidavit, no specific denial to that effect has been given. 3. In para-23 of the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that after submitting the defence reply to the charge-sheet on 16.02.2015 the Inquiry Officer has concluded the inquiry on 26.03.2015. So as to verify the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court summoned the relevant records. The records are produced and the perusal thereof reveals that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct inasmuch as after submitting the defence reply to the charge-sheet on 16.02.2015 the Inquiry Officer has concluded the departmental inquiry on 26.03.2015 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by fixing date, time and place for oral examination. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has apprised the Court that the petitioner is no more as he expired on 27.12.2017 and the present petition is being contested by his legal heirs. Therefore, in view of the fact the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Sharif (Dead) through Lrs. reported in AIR 1982 SC 937 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that since the employee has died during pendency of the proceedings, the only relief that would be available to the legal heirs of the deceased is the payment of arrears of salary and other emoluments payable to the deceased. Further, in the case of Parwati Devi vs. Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No.6684 of 2008 decided on 14.11.2008 the Hon'ble Apex Court has followed the same analogy as has been held in Mohd. Sharif's case (supra). 5. Further, in the case of Parwati Devi vs. Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No.6684 of 2008 decided on 14.11.2008 the Hon'ble Apex Court has followed the same analogy as has been held in Mohd. Sharif's case (supra). 5. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner since the original record to that effect clarifies the position. 6. The law is settled on the aforesaid point by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases holding that even if the delinquent employee has submitted that he has nothing to show regarding his charges except the defence reply which has been submitted by him and the Disciplinary Authority is of the view that the charges are so grave entailing the major punishment, in that case, the full fledged departmental inquiry shall be conducted by fixing the date, time and place for oral inquiry so that the delinquent employee could defend the charges by examining/ cross-examining the witnesses and documents. If such exercise has not been carried out by the Inquiry Officer and any punishment order pursuant to the said inquiry report has been passed, the same shall be nullity in the eyes of law. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: State of U.P. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in AIR 2010 SC 3131 in an identical and similar circumstances has held that if any punishment order, more particularly, the major punishment has been passed on the basis of inquiry report wherein the Inquiry Officer has not fixed any date, time and place for oral inquiry, the departmental inquiry as well as the punishment order would vitiate. 8. Further, in para-26 of the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the facts and circumstances of the issue has held that since no oral evidence has been examined, the documents have not been proved and could not have been taking into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the delinquent employee. The relevant paras-27, 28 & 36 are being reproduced here-in-below:- "27. Apart from the above by virtue of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India the departmental inquiry had to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. The relevant paras-27, 28 & 36 are being reproduced here-in-below:- "27. Apart from the above by virtue of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India the departmental inquiry had to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding which may culminate in a punishment being imposed on the employee. 28. When a department 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 enquiry 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. In the case of Shaughnessy v. United States, 345 US 206 (1953) (Jackson J), a judge of the United States Supreme Court has said "procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied." 36. The proposition of law that a government employee facing a department enquiry is entitled to all the relevant statement, documents and other materials to enable him to have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the department enquiry against the charges is too well established to need any further reiteration. Nevertheless given the facts of this case we may re-emphasise the law as stated by this Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Bhagat Ram (1975) 1 SCC 155 : ( AIR 1974 SC 2335 ): "The State contended that the respondent was not entitled to get copies of statements. The reasoning of the State was that the respondent was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and during the cross-examination the respondent would have the opportunity of confronting the witnesses with the statements. It is contended that the synopsis was adequate to acquaint the respondent with the gist of the evidence. The reasoning of the State was that the respondent was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and during the cross-examination the respondent would have the opportunity of confronting the witnesses with the statements. It is contended that the synopsis was adequate to acquaint the respondent with the gist of the evidence. The meaning of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken is that the government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges on which inquiry is held. The government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so when he is told what the charges against him are. He can do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying statements is that the government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witnesses proposed to be examined against the government servant. Unless the statements are given to the government servant he will not be able to have an effective and useful cross-examination. It is unjust and unfair to deny the government servant copies of statements of witnesses examined during investigation and produced at the inquiry in support of the charges levelled against the government servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirements of giving the government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken." 9. Undisputedly, the aforesaid settled position is being followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court while deciding the similar and identical issue. 10. Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that since the punishment order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the departmental inquiry has not been conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law and also considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra), the punishment order dated 23.05.2015 passed by the opposite party No.4, which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, is liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the opposite party No.4, which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 12. 11. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the opposite party No.4, which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 12. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to make payment of post retiral benefits which were payable to the petitioner, to his legal heirs including the arrears of subsistence allowance from the date it become dues till the date it is actually paid forthwith preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Failing which, the legal heirs of the petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of order till it is actually paid. 13. Since the petitioner has died during pendency of the writ petition, therefore, the direction for denovo inquiry may not be issued. 14. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 15. Consequences to follow. 16. No order as to cost.