ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Madan Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. This is a thoroughly misconceived and ill advised appeal and unnecessarily has been carried up to this Court, may be to harass employee concerned, who was imposed punishment of dismissal without holding any oral enquiry and that is why learned Single Judge vide judgment in appeal held that major penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed in a summary enquiry without holding any regular departmental enquiry which would include oral enquiry. 3. Law is well settled in this regard and this Court may usefully refer few recent judgments of Supreme Court and a series of decisions of this Court on this aspect. 4. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131 : (2010) 2 SCC 772 : LNIND 2010 SC 136, Court has held:- "An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/ disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the un-rebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents." "When a departmental 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 inquiry 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." (Emphasis added) 5. Similar view was taken in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 : LNIND 2008 SC 2509 where Court said:- "Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. Similar view was taken in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 : LNIND 2008 SC 2509 where Court said:- "Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence." (Emphasis added) 6. This Court also has taken same view earlier in Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director, U.P. Co-op. Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. Kanpur and Another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 : LNIND 1999 All 1388 and said:- "In our opinion after the petitioner replied to the charge-sheet a date should have been fixed for the enquiry and the petitioner should have been intimated the date, time and place of the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should have been led in his presence and he should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him and also he should have been given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner in response to this intimation had failed to appear for the enquiry then an ex parte enquiry should have been held but the petitioner's service should have not been terminated without holding an enquiry. In the present case it appears that no regular enquiry was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet he was given a show-cause notice and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. In our opinion this was not the correct legal procedure and there was violation of the rules of natural justice. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet he was given a show-cause notice and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. In our opinion this was not the correct legal procedure and there was violation of the rules of natural justice. Since no date for enquiry was fixed nor any enquiry held in which evidence was led in our opinion the impugned order is clearly violative of natural justice." "In Meenglas Tea Estate vs. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 , the Supreme Court observed: it is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way to cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted." In S.C. Girotra vs. United Commercial Bank, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 212, the Supreme Court set aside a dismissal order which was passed without giving the employee an opportunity of cross-examination. In State of U.P. vs. C.S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158 , the Supreme Court held that omission to give opportunity to the officer to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. The Court also held that in the enquiry witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations, and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine these witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. In Punjab National Bank vs. A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160 , (vide para 66) the Supreme Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in the presence of the charge-sheeted employee and he must be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. The same view was taken in A.C.C. Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, 1963 (11) LLJ 396 and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, 1963 (2) LLJ 78 (SC). The same view was taken in A.C.C. Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, 1963 (11) LLJ 396 and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Their Workmen, 1963 (2) LLJ 78 (SC). Even if the employee refuses to participate in the enquiry the employer cannot straightaway dismiss him, but he must hold and ex-parte enquiry where evidence must be led vide Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348 and Uma Shankar vs. Registrar, 1992 (65) FLR 674 (All)." (Emphasis added) 7. The above judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills and Others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 : LNIND 2001 All 445 wherein Court held: "In cases where a major punishment proposed to be imposed an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee request, for it or not. For this it is necessary to issue a notice to the employee concerned intimating him date, time and place of the enquiry as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541 , against which SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16-8-2000." 8. This Court in Rajesh Prasad Mishra vs. Commissioner, Jhansi and Others, 2010 (1) UPLBEC 216, after a detailed analysis of earlier precedents on subject, observed as under: "Now coming to the question, what is the effect of non-holding of oral inquiry, I find that, in a case where the inquiry officer is appointed, oral inquiry is mandatory. The charges are not deemed to be proved suo motu merely on account of leveling them by means of the charge sheet unless the same are proved by the department before the inquiry officer and only thereafter it is the turn of delinquent employee to place his defence. Holding oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty, as held by Apex Court in State of U.P. and Another vs. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director and Another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541 . Holding oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty, as held by Apex Court in State of U.P. and Another vs. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director and Another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541 . The question as to whether non holding of oral inquiry can vitiate the entire proceeding or not has also been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in the case of Salahuddin Ansari vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2008 (3) ESC 1667 and the Court has clearly held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment." (Emphasis added) 9. In Mahesh Narain Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2011) 2 ILR 570 (All) : LNIND 2011 All 1642, also this Court had an occasion to deal with the same issue and held: "At this stage, we are to observe that in the disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent, the department is just like a plaintiff and initial burden lies on the department to prove the charges which can certainly be proved only by collecting some oral evidence or documentary evidence, in presence and notice charged employee. Even if the department is to rely its own record/document which are already available, then also the enquiry officer by looking into them and by assigning his own reason after analysis, will have to record a finding that hose documents are sufficient enough to prove the charges. In no case, approach of the Enquiry Officer that as no reply has been submitted, the charge will have to be automatically proved can be approved. This will be erroneous. It has been repeatedly said that disciplinary authority has a right to proceed against delinquent employee in ex parte manner but some evidence will have to be collected and justification to sustain the charges will have to be stated in detail. The approach of the enquiry officer of automatic prove of charges on account of non filing of reply is clearly misconceived and erroneous. This is against the principle of natural justice, fair play, fair hearing and, thus, enquiry officer has to be cautioned in this respect." (Emphasis added) 10. The approach of the enquiry officer of automatic prove of charges on account of non filing of reply is clearly misconceived and erroneous. This is against the principle of natural justice, fair play, fair hearing and, thus, enquiry officer has to be cautioned in this respect." (Emphasis added) 10. In another case in Subhash Chandra Gupta vs. State of U.P. 2012 (1) UPLBEC 166 (All) : LNIND 2011 All 1100, a Division Bench of this Court, after survey of law on this issue, said: "It is well settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner that thing has to be done in that very manner. We are of the considered opinion that any punishment awarded on the basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance with the enquiry rules meant for that very purposes is unsustainable in the eye of law. We are further of the view that the procedure prescribed under the inquiry rules for imposing major penalty is mandatory in nature and unless those procedures are followed, any outcome inferred thereon will be of no avail unless the charges are so glaring and un-refutable which does not require any proof. The view taken by us find support from the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Another vs. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director and Another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541 . A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2008 (3) ESC 1667 held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which can vitiate the order of disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment has observed as under:- "10.......Non holding of oral inquiry in such a case, is a serious matter and goes to the root of the case. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director and Another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541 , considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director and Another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541 , considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills and Others, 2001 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1475 and Laturi Singh vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and Others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 06.05.2005." 11. Recently, entire law on the subject has been reviewed and reiterated in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and Others, AIR 2016 SC 2510 : (2016) 12 SCC 204 : LNIND 2016 SC 235 : (2016) 5 MLJ 32 and Court has culled out certain principles as under: "(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona-fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any." 12. The principle of law emanates from the above judgments is that initial burden is on the department to prove the charges. In case where inquiry is initiated with a view to inflict major penalty, department must prove charges by adducing evidence by holding oral inquiry. 13. The principle of law emanates from the above judgments is that initial burden is on the department to prove the charges. In case where inquiry is initiated with a view to inflict major penalty, department must prove charges by adducing evidence by holding oral inquiry. 13. When a major punishment could have been imposed, department has to prove charges against delinquent/employee by examining witnesses and by documentary evidence. In the present case no witness was examined by department neither any one has been examined to prove relied on documents in oral inquiry. 14. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Even if, an employee prefers not to participate in enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary. 15. We may hasten to add that the above mentioned law is subject to certain exception. When the facts are admitted or no real prejudice has been caused to employee or no other conclusion is possible, in such situation the order shall not be vitiated. Reference may be made to the some of the decision of Supreme Court in K.L. Tripathi vs. State Bank of India, AIR 1984 SC 273 : (1984) 1 SCC 43 : LNIND 1983 SC 283, State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 1669 : (1996) 3 SCC 364 : LNIND 1996 SC 2680 and Biecco Lawrie Ltd. vs. West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 142 : (2009) 10 SCC 32 : LNIND 2009 SC 1538. 16. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for appellant could show no manifest error in the judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed in Ram Abhilash Srivastava vs. Commissioner, Allahabad and Others, Writ Petition No. 42266 of 2001 which has been challenged in this intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1952’). 17. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for appellant could show no manifest error in the judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed in Ram Abhilash Srivastava vs. Commissioner, Allahabad and Others, Writ Petition No. 42266 of 2001 which has been challenged in this intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1952’). 17. In view thereof, we do not find any good reason to interfere in the judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed by learned Single Judge. This appeal lacks merit. 18. Dismissed accordingly.