JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.08.2001 inflicting the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner under Section 40(A)(8) of the GIDC (Staff) Regulations, 1963 and also the order dated 31.08.2004 rejecting his appeal of the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has passed away and he is represented through his legal heirs. 2. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 15.04.1997 inter alia alleging that due to his negligence in constructing Block No.8, which resulted into its collapse and because of collapse of the said block, financial loss was caused to the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation ('the Corporation' for short). There were two charges leveled against the petitioner in this regard, wherein the charge no.2 pertains to lack of attention pertaining to his work by the petitioner as a Deputy Executive Engineer and thereby, he was negligent in his duty. After holding a departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer vide its report dated 04.09.2000, proved the charges against the petitioner. 3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.S.S.Jadeja for learned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has passed away on 28.01.2012. He has invited the attention of this Court to the communication dated 07.08.1997, wherein the petitioner has specifically made a grievance against the appointment of Inquiry Officer Shri K.B.Bhagat since he was the approving authority of the design of Block No.8, which ultimately had collapsed. 3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Jadeja for the petitioner has further submitted petitioner had requested vide letters dated 19.04.1997, 17.06.1997 as well as 08.06.1998 to the disciplinary proceedings as well as to the Inquiry Officer to provide necessary documents on which the reliance was placed, however, the same was not provided till the departmental inquiry as well as the inquiry proceedings were over, which also indicates bias on behalf of the Inquiry Officer. He as submitted that non supply of such copies to the petitioner has caused great prejudice since he was unable to put forth his defence in an effective manner as all the measurements and designs as well as the material which were used in the construction were mentioned therein. He as submitted that non supply of such copies to the petitioner has caused great prejudice since he was unable to put forth his defence in an effective manner as all the measurements and designs as well as the material which were used in the construction were mentioned therein. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr.Jadeja for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the defence statement of the petitioner dated 04.10.1997, wherein the petitioner has specifically placed reliance on the report of S.V.R. Engineering College, Surat, which was an expert body, called upon by the respondent authorities constituting of three(3)highly qualified professor of College. Learned advocate has submitted that the College has specifically found that the block No.8 has collapsed due to the two reasons;(i) differential settlement of soil below foundation of block No.8 and (ii) due to some defects in the structural design of the said block. He has submitted that the inquiry officer has placed reliance on the report of the G.I.D.C. expert shri. Jalundhwala, who has not even put his signature on the report. He has further pointed out that the inquiry officer has cursorily not considered the aforesaid contentions raised by the petitioner in his defence statement. He has submitted that the inquiry officer has simply discarded the same by stating that the same are irrelevant. 3.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Jadeja has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, AIR 2018 SC 4860 . He has also submitted that in various judgments the Apex Court has held that the documents on which the reliance is placed, if are not supplied to the delinquent, then the inquiry proceedings are vitiated. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned orders are required to be set aside. Reliance is also placed on the judgment dated 18.03.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.15208 of 2004 in the case of his Superior, wherein this Court has set aside the penalty imposed on him. 4. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned orders are required to be set aside. Reliance is also placed on the judgment dated 18.03.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.15208 of 2004 in the case of his Superior, wherein this Court has set aside the penalty imposed on him. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Uday Joshi appearing for the respondent has submitted that the appointment of Shri K.B.Bhagat as an Inquiry Officer has not resulted to any bias since the findings of the Inquiry Officer as well as the inquiry report reveal that Block No.8 had collapsed because of faulty material which was used by the petitioner and not because of the faulty design. He has further submitted that the documents as demanded by the petitioner were supplied to him. However, he has submitted that the documents which were demanded by the petitioner were offered for inspection. Thus, he has submitted that the punishment imposed by the respondent authorities on the petitioner cannot be set aside as the same is imposed as per the regulations of the Corporation. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Joshi has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey, (2013) 2 SCC 740 . Thus, he has submitted that the impugned orders are not required to be quashed and set aside. Thus, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the respondents that the documents were only given for inspection and it was not feasible to supply the copies and hence, the departmental inquiry could not have been vitiated on this ground. 5. No further submissions are advanced by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 6. It is also not in dispute that the Inquiry Officer Mr.K.B.Bhagat was associated with the drawing/design of the quarters which have ultimately collapsed. The petitioner on the very first occasion, when he was appointed as an Inquiry Officer vide communication dated 07.08.1997 has requested the disciplinary authority to change him on account of his involvement with the design. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra) while endorsing the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has observed as thus: “30. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra) while endorsing the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has observed as thus: “30. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court speaking through Justice R.V. Raveendran, CJ (as he then was) had occasion to consider the question of vitiation of the inquiry when the Inquiry Officer starts himself acting as prosecutor in Union of India and ors. vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, ILR (2004) MP 821. In the above case the Court considered Rule 9(9) (c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Division Bench while elaborating fundamental principles of natural justice enumerated the seven well recognized facets in paragraph 7 of the judgment which is to the following effect: “7. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. This principle consists of seven well recognised facets: (i) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias, (ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor, (iii) The complainant shall not be an adjudicator, (iv) A witness cannot be the Adjudicator, (v) The Adjudicator must not import his personal knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into charges, (vi) The Adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his Superiors or others, (vii) The Adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to material on record and not reference to extraneous material or on extraneous considerations. If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the inquiry will be vitiated.” 31. The Division Bench further held that where the Inquiry Officer acts as Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. In paragraph 9 is as follows: “9. A domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased person who is unconnected with the incident so that he can be impartial and in deciding the subject matters of inquiry. He should have an open mind till the inquiry is completed and should neither act with bias nor give an impression of bias. Where the Inquiry Officer acts as the Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. At all events, clearly gives an impression of bias. An Inquiry Officer is in position of a Judge or Adjudicator. The Presenting Officer is in the position of a Prosecutor. Where the Inquiry Officer acts as the Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. At all events, clearly gives an impression of bias. An Inquiry Officer is in position of a Judge or Adjudicator. The Presenting Officer is in the position of a Prosecutor. If the Inquiry Officer acts as a Presenting Officer, then it would amount to Judge acting as the prosecutor. When the Inquiry Officer conducts the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses and leads them through the brief facts of the case are as under: so as to present the case of the disciplinary authority against the employee or cross-examines the delinquent employee or his witnesses to establish the case of the employer/disciplinary authority evidently, the Inquiry Officer cannot be said to have an open mind. The very fact that he presents the case of the employer and supports the case of the employer is sufficient to hold that the Inquiry Officer does not have an open mind.” 32. The Division Bench after elaborately considering the issue summarised the principles in paragraph 16 which is to the following effect: “16. We may summarise the principles thus: (i) The Inquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor. (ii) It is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry. (iii) The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to cross examine such witnesses on those clarifications. (iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution case employee, the Inquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry. (iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution case employee, the Inquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry. (v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognised that the Inquiry Officer can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an Inquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with reference to the manner in which the evidence is let in and recorded in the inquiry. Whether an Inquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Inquiry also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may.” 8. The observations made by the division bench of the Madras High Court as incorporated in the aforesaid judgment specifically elaborate that the adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias. It is further observed in Paragraph No.9 by the Division Bench that a domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased person who is unconnected with the incident so that he can be impartial and objective in deciding the subject matters of inquiry. He should have an open mind till the inquiry is completed and should neither act with bias nor give an impression of bias. Thus, even there is an apprehension of likelihood of bias, the Inquiry Officer, who acts as quasijudicial authority has to recuse himself from the proceedings. 9. In the present case, unquestionably, the Inquiry Officer was connected with the design of the block which had collapsed and in fact, he was the approving authority. Before the Inquiry Officer and during the inquiry proceedings also, the petitioner had specifically contended that the block had collapsed because of the faulty design and not by the material used in the construction. The Inquiry Officer has placed reliance on various documents and has concluded that due to defective material used by the petitioner, the block had collapsed and not because of faulty design. The Inquiry Officer has placed reliance on various documents and has concluded that due to defective material used by the petitioner, the block had collapsed and not because of faulty design. The issue of faulty design of the block was also a subject matter in the departmental proceedings. Thus, the Inquiry Officer, who was the approving authority of the design, has ultimately held that the building had not collapsed because of such faulty design, but because of the material used by the petitioner. Hence, it can be safely presumed that the Inquiry Officer was very well connected with such finding wherein it was held that the building had not collapsed because of faulty design. It is noticed by this Court that the contentions raised by the petitioner by placing reliance on the expert report of the S.V.R. Engineering College, is discarded by the inquiry officer by stating that it is found to be irrelevant. As regards the contentions raised by the petitioner objecting the reliance placed by the inquiry officer upon the report of the expert of G.I.D.C., since the report is not signed by the expert, the same has been brushed aside by the inquiry officer by saying that such contentions are not acceptable. It is not the case of the respondents that the report of the S.V.R. Engineering College, Surat was called upon on the request of the petitioner. The said report was called upon by the inquiry officer and the reliance placed in such report, which was favourable to the petitioner is discarded cursorily by observing that it is not relevant. Hence, the approach of the inquiry officer in the entire episode appears to be prejudicial and biased. 10. As regards the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the respective parties for the grant of backwages, learned advocate Mr.Joshi has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union, AIR 2010 SC 2507 and has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to full backwages but at the most, he can get 50% of backwages. Learned advocate Mr.Jadeja has submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to full backwages. 11. The contentions raised by the petitioner for setting aside the departmental inquiry on the ground of nonsupply of the relevant documents, merits acceptance. Learned advocate Mr.Jadeja has submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to full backwages. 11. The contentions raised by the petitioner for setting aside the departmental inquiry on the ground of nonsupply of the relevant documents, merits acceptance. The petitioner during the departmental proceedings and in the final defence statement dated 19.06.1999 has made a request to supply the relevant document, which was required for his defence. The “Remarks” column of his defence statement reveals that though some of the documents were supplied, the relevant papers were missing, namely, in Item No.I there were 258 pages missing, which were related to copy of plans. (2) Design calculations was found in the file (3) Consultancy Report of the S.V.R. College of Engineering & Technology, which was a vital document. (4) Soil Investigation Report mislead some other report of other quarters were shown. (5) Incomplete Report of Shri M.J. Jalundhwala on which reliance was placed by the inquiry officer. Apart from the above documents, the documents on which the reliance was placed by the inquiry officer only inspection was allowed, which violates the principles of natural justice. The inspections of documents will not meet with the doctrine of fair play and equity. Such documents are required to be supplied to the delinquent so that he can effectively put forth his defence. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. vs. D.C. Aggarwal & Anr., AIR 1993 SC 1197 has held that even if the document is a privileged document, the same should be supplied to the delinquent and non-supplying of such document would vitiate the departmental inquiry and would be against the procedural fairness. 12. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Committee of, Kisan Degree College vs. Shambhu Saran Pandey & Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 404 has held thus: “Postponement of the opportunity to inspect the documents to the time of final hearing was obviously an erroneous procedure. In the first instance, the delinquent should be given the opportunity for inspection and thereafter the enquiry should be conducted and then the delinquent should be heard at the time of conclusion of the enquiry.” 13. In the first instance, the delinquent should be given the opportunity for inspection and thereafter the enquiry should be conducted and then the delinquent should be heard at the time of conclusion of the enquiry.” 13. In the present case, the aforesaid documents were not supplied to the petitioner on the ground that since the documents were not feasible to supply and unquestionably, the aforesaid documents, upon which the reliance is placed by the Inquiry Officer to prove the charges against the petitioner, were required to be supplied to the petitioner. 14. Reliance is placed by learned advocate for the respondents on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Pandey (supra) will not come to the rescue since the same deals with the list to be annexed with the charge-sheet and the Apex Court has observed thus: “20. We are of the view that the High Court has committed an error in holding that the charge-sheet should have mentioned about the details of the documents and the names of the witnesses which the Bank proposed to examine and a list to that effect should have been appended to the charge sheet. We may point out that the charge-sheet need not contain the details of the documents or the names of the witnesses proposed to be examined to prove the charges or a list to that effect unless there is a specific provision to that effect. Charge sheet, in other words, is not expected to a record of. Fair procedure does not mean giving of copies of the documents or list of witnesses along with the charge-sheet. Of course, statement of allegations has to accompany the charge-sheet, when required by the Service Rules.” 15. A perusal of the inquiry report reveals that the petitioner had also raised the issue before the Inquiry Officer to supply the documents. It is specifically mentioned by him that the aforesaid documents are needed by him for putting forth an effective defence, but it appears that some of the documents, upon which reliance was placed, are not even allowed to be inspected. Under the circumstances, the impugned departmental inquiry, which was held against the petitioner suffers from procedural unfairness, and is required to be quashed and set aside. Under the circumstances, the impugned departmental inquiry, which was held against the petitioner suffers from procedural unfairness, and is required to be quashed and set aside. In fact, such an approach would substantiate the argument of the petitioner that the Inquiry Officer was biased against him as he was connected with the design and had approved it. 16. It is reported by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has passed away on 28.01.2012 and hence, in this view of the matter, it would not be feasible to ask the disciplinary authority to conduct the inquiry afresh. 17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner would be entitled to 50% backwages and a just balance needs to be struck and the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ does not deserve to be given a complete goby looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case. The interest of justice would be subserved, if the respondents are directed to pay 50% backwages as per the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural(supra). 18. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 30.08.2001 and communication dated 31.08.2004 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents shall calculate the aforesaid amount and pay the same to the petitioners. The respondents shall also refix the pay and the retirement benefits accordingly, within a period of two(2) months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. If the aforementioned amount is not paid within the time specified by this Court, then the same shall further carry 12% rate of interest for the delayed period. The petition stands allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.