Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1510 (ALL)

Ashish Kumar Tiwari v. State Of U. P.

2020-12-16

J.J.MUNIR

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by Ms. Monika Rani, the then Collector, Chitrakoot, dated 03.02.2017, dismissing the petitioner from Government service. It has further been ordered that a sum of Rs.86,74,600/-held embezzled by the petitioner be recovered from him. 2. The petitioner was a Deputy Cashier ¼mi jksdfM+;k½ , posted at the Sub-Treasury Mau, District Chitrakoot. Shorn of details, that are unnecessary to determine the short point that arises for consideration here, the petitioner was charge sheeted through two separate charge sheets dated 06.04.2016 and 26.05.2016, on the foundation of which, disciplinary proceedings were drawn against him. The substance of the charges against the petitioner is that he had embezzled Government moneys in the sum of Rs.86,74,600/-by manipulating figures in the deposit challans, relating to sums of money, collected at the Treasury and deposited by him at the Allahabad Bank, Branch Mau, District Chitrakoot on 69 days between 08.04.2015 to 06.02.2016. 3. Parties have exchanged affidavits, whereafter this petition was formally admitted to hearing on 01.12.2020. It was heard on that date and thereafter, adjourned on a few instances. Parties have concluded their submissions today. 4. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, along with Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, Mr. Shree Prakash Singh and Dr. Amar Nath Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 5. No doubt, the charges against the petitioner are serious, but Mr. Arvind Srivastava says that the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. During hearing, he has canvassed a number of points to assail the entire disciplinary proceedings, including those relating to non-supply of documents, that have been produced against him, apart from personal bias that he has alleged against Kamlesh Kumar, the Senior Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Chitrakoot. 6. This Court is not minded to examine the other contentions raised by Mr. Srivastava, which may not be treated to be decided either way by this judgment, except the one that this Court proceeds to consider now. Mr. Srivastava submits that during the course of the departmental inquiry, as a part of the disciplinary proceedings, no date, time or place for holding the inquiry was determined nor any such date, time or place was intimated to the petitioner. Mr. Srivastava submits that during the course of the departmental inquiry, as a part of the disciplinary proceedings, no date, time or place for holding the inquiry was determined nor any such date, time or place was intimated to the petitioner. He further submits that the respondents have not proved the charges before the Inquiry Officer by examining witnesses in support of the same. No oral evidence has been recorded on behalf of the establishment. The Inquiry Officer has proceeded to evaluate papers before him, without any evidence being led by the establishment to prove the charges. The Inquiry Officer, on the basis of an evaluation of documents on record done of his own, has held the charges proved. This, according to Mr. Srivastava, is a manifest illegality, which vitiates the inquiry report and the consequential order of dismissal from service founded on it. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, in particular, invited the Court’s attention to paragraph no.43 of the writ petition, where it is averred to the following effect: “43. That it is pertinent to state here that nothing has been done pursuant to the said letter dated 22.11.2016 by the Enquiry Officer. Neither any alleged charge sheet, material evidence or permission to cross examine the alleged witnesses has been provided nor any date or time or place has been disclosed/ fixed by the Inquiry Officer for hearing of the petitioner in the alleged departmental enquiry being conducted against him, and thus the said act and conduct of the inquiry officer not only violates the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the Government Order dated 22.4.2015 but also violates the Principles of Natural Justice of law.” 8. Paragraph no.43 of the writ petition has been answered in paragraph no.44 of the counter affidavit, which reads to the following effect: ^^44- ;g fd fjV ;kfpdk ds ÁLrj&43 dk dFku ftl Ádkj of.kZr gS] Lohdkj ugha gSA mi;qDr ,oa foLr`r mRrj iwoZorhZ ÁLrjksa esa fn;k tk pqdk gSA** 9. Paragraph no.43 of the writ petition has been answered in paragraph no.44 of the counter affidavit, which reads to the following effect: ^^44- ;g fd fjV ;kfpdk ds ÁLrj&43 dk dFku ftl Ádkj of.kZr gS] Lohdkj ugha gSA mi;qDr ,oa foLr`r mRrj iwoZorhZ ÁLrjksa esa fn;k tk pqdk gSA** 9. The only paragraph of consequence in the counter affidavit, where any material averment with regard to the petitioner’s stand carried in paragraph no.43 of the writ petition can be found, is paragraph no.40 of the writ petition, which reads: ^^40- ;g fd] fjV ;kfpdk ds ÁLrj&39 dk dFku ftl Ádkj of.kZr gS] Lohdkj ugha gSA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk ;kph dks vkjksi i= fnukad 07&11&16] leLr lk{;ksa@layXudksa lfgr vusd ckj miyC/k djk;h x;hA fdUrq ;kph us vkjksi i= esa bafxr fdlh Hkh vkjksi dk mRrj u nsdj ek= tkap esa O;o/kku Mkyus@foyEc djkus dh uh;r ls vuko';d i=kpkj fd;s vkSj mi;qZDr i=tkr mls ÁkIr u gksus dk dFku fd;kA mDr ds lk{; Lo#i tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk ;kph dks ÁkIr djk;k x;k i= fnukad 19&11&16 voyksduh; gS ftlesa Li"V mYys[k gS fd ^^------vki }kjk ek= is'kcUnh fd;s tkus dh uh;r ls 'kklu dks vuko';d o >wBs rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr i=kpkj dj Hkzfer fd;s tkus dk dqfRlr Á;kl fd;k x;k gSA ;|;fi vki }kjk tkucw>dj vius fo#) Ápfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dks vf/kdre le; rd foyfEcr djus dh uh;r ls ,sls d`R; fd;s tk jgs gSa rFkkfi ;fn dfFkr rkSj ij lkns dkxt ÁkIr gksus dk dFku vki }kjk fd;k tk jgk gS rks vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki vius fo#) Ápfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ls lEcfU/kr vkjksi i= leLr layXudksa lfgr] tks iwoZ esa vkidks gLrxr~ djk;s tk pqds gSa] iqu% v/kksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; esa rRdky mifLFkr gksdj v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k ÁkIr djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA------** iqu% ftykf/kdkjh }kjk ;kph dks ÁkIr djk;k x;k vkns'k fnukad 07&12&16 voyksduh; gS ftlesa Li"V mYys[k gS fd ek- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 24929@2016 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 06&09&16 ds vUrxZr tkap dk;Zokgh fnukad 31&12&16 rd iw.kZ fd;s tkus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;s gSa fdUrq ;kph }kjk tkucw>dj vius fo#) Ápfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dks vf/kdre~ le; rd yfEcr j[kus dh uh;r ls loZFkk xyr] Hkzked o fujk/kkj i=kpkj ckjEckj djrs gq, tkap esa visf{kr lg;ksx ugha fn;k tk jgk gSA ;n~;fi ;kph dks vkjksi i= e; leLr lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k@Nk;kÁfr;ka vusd ckj lh/kS@iathd`r Mkd ls ÁkIr djk;s tk pqds gSa fQj Hkh ;kph foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ls lEcfU/kr Ái= iqu% lh/ks ÁkIr djds viuk i{k tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k ÁLrqr djsA i= fnukad 19-11-2016 ,oa vkns'k fnukad 07-12-2016 dh Nk;kÁfr layXud la0&6 o 7 ds #i esa layXu gSA** 10. It appears that the specific stand of the petitioner, that a date, time and place to hold the inquiry were never communicated to him, was canvassed before this Court earlier as well, when this petition was still at the stage of motion of hearing. There is a very detailed order on this issue passed on 28.02.2019, which reads: “Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav learned Standing Counsel. Pursuant to the earlier orders passed, Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav learned Standing Counsel has produced the record. From the records which have been produced before the Court it appears that the respondents had placed the petitioner upon notice to file a reply to the charge sheet which had been served. According to them however despite time having been granted, the petitioner did not furnish any reply. Sri Yadav has then, after going through the entire record, submitted that no oral evidence was recorded in the course of the disciplinary proceedings since the respondents were of the considered view that the charges were liable to be tested and established on the basis of the documentary evidence which was made part of the enquiry. Sri Yadav has then, drawing the attention of the Court to the enquiry report, submitted that the enquiry officer has independently evaluated the documentary evidence and has thereafter proceeded to record his detailed conclusions with respect to the charges levelled. Sri Arvind Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner has additionally drawn the attention of the Court to the pleadings taken in paragraph 43 of the writ petition to contend that no notice indicating the date, time or place of enquiry was communicated to the petitioner by the enquiry officer. Sri Yadav with the aid of the record has sought to rebut this assertion and has submitted that notices had in fact been issued. He prays for time to file a supplementary counter affidavit bringing those notices on record. Sri Yadav with the aid of the record has sought to rebut this assertion and has submitted that notices had in fact been issued. He prays for time to file a supplementary counter affidavit bringing those notices on record. Although Sri Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner in his preliminary submissions advanced on this writ petition sought to make certain allegations against the fourth respondent and to submit that the entire action taken against the petitioner was tainted with mala fides, on being asked to point out the averments made against the said respondent so as to justify issuance of notice, all that was pleaded was the averments made in paragraph-59 of the writ petition. Presently and on evaluation of the averments so made, this Court finds no ground to issue notice to the private respondent No.4. List this petition again after three week by which time the supplementary counter affidavit may be filed by the State.” 11. At the hearing before this Court, no supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, in terms prayed on 28.02.2019. This Court, therefore, has no option but to proceed on the assumption that the averments in the paragraph no.43 of the writ petition are true, as these remain unrebutted. The conclusion on facts, therefore, would be that no date, time and place of the inquiry scheduled was intimated to the petitioner. The consequence of this failure in law will be shortly examined. Apart from it, it has also been urged that no oral evidence during the course of inquiry was recorded on behalf of the establishment, which was necessary in the case, which involved a charge entailing a major penalty. Here also, there is hardly any dispute on facts that no oral evidence was led on behalf of the establishment to prove the charges. This fact has figured in this Court’s order dated 28.02.2019, where Mr. Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned Standing Counsel, on going through the record, did not dispute the fact that during the course of the disciplinary proceedings, no oral evidence was recorded. No material to the contrary has been shown to this Court during the hearing today or earlier on 1st December, 2020. This Court, therefore, also has to pronounce upon the legal effect of the respondents’ failure to lead oral evidence in support of the charges, held proved against the petitioner at the inquiry. 12. No material to the contrary has been shown to this Court during the hearing today or earlier on 1st December, 2020. This Court, therefore, also has to pronounce upon the legal effect of the respondents’ failure to lead oral evidence in support of the charges, held proved against the petitioner at the inquiry. 12. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the present case is one which does not require any oral evidence at all, for the petitioner’s guilt is established by documents that are on record. He submits that there is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner did not submit replies to the charge sheets or led evidence, despite being granted ample opportunity to do so. The Inquiry Officer, therefore, on a perusal of the documents on record, rightly and justly concluded that the petitioner was guilty of tampering the various treasury challans and by doing that, embezzled Government moneys in the sum of Rs.86,74,600/-. 13. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by parties. The procedure for imposition of major penalties is laid down in the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, ‘the Rules’). Rule 7 of the Rules read as follows: “7. Procedure for imposing major penalties.- Before imposing any major penalty on a Government servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner : (i) The disciplinary authority may himself inquire into the charges or appoint an authority subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. (ii) The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge-sheet. The charge- sheet shall be approved by the disciplinary authority : Provided that where the appointing authority is Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary; as the case may be, of the concerned department. (iii) The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet. (iii) The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet. (iv) The charged Government servant shall be required to put in a written statement of his defence in person on a specified date which shall not be less than 15 days from the date of issue of charge-sheet and to state whether he desires to cross-examine any witness mentioned in the charge-sheet and whether desires to give or produce evidence in his defence. He shall also be informed that in case he does not appear or file the written statement on the specified date, it will be presumed that he has none to furnish and Inquiry Officer shall proceed to complete the inquiry ex-parte. (v) The charge-sheet, alongwith the copy of the documentary evidences mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged Government servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records. In case the charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation : Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charged Government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer. (vi) Where the charged Government servant appears and admits the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his report to the disciplinary authority on the basis of such admission. (vii) Where the charged Government servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence : Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence : Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. (viii) The Inquiry Officer may summon any witness to give evidence or require any person to produce documents before him in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1976. (ix) The Inquiry Officer may ask any question he pleases, at any time of any witness or from person charged with a view to discover the truth or to obtain proper proof of facts relevant to charges. (x) Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding inspite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant. (xi) The disciplinary authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may, by an order appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the charge. (xi) The disciplinary authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may, by an order appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the charge. (xii) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner of the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits : Provided that this rule shall not apply in following cases : (i) Where any major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that for reason to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or (iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules.” (Emphasis by Court) 14. It must be remarked that the imposition of a major penalty on a Government servant is a serious matter, and no matter how serious the charge is, procedural safeguards have to be strictly ensured. The procedure for holding an inquiry is laid down in Rule 7 of the Rules, extracted above. A perusal of the record of the writ petition and facts that have been established do not show whether a charge sheet conforming to Rule 7(iii) of the Rules was ever issued to the petitioner. There is a mention of two charge sheets in the impugned order 03.02.2017, but all that this Court has been shown is the inquiry report dated 31.12.2016, annexed to the counter affidavit, carrying a summary of the charges. This report is annexed as Annexure no.4 to the counter affidavit. In fact, this document carries the entire record of disciplinary proceedings and the manner these have been gone about. This report is annexed as Annexure no.4 to the counter affidavit. In fact, this document carries the entire record of disciplinary proceedings and the manner these have been gone about. This Court is convinced that a charge sheet conforming to Rule 7 of the Rules was never issued to the petitioner, carrying with it a summary of the documentary evidence and the witnesses, by which distinct charges indicated and framed, in precise and clear terms against the petitioner, were proposed to be proved. 15. It must also be said that the inquiry proceedings as well as the order of the Disciplinary Authority betray an impression that the respondents have confounded the two distinct roles of the Investigator and the Adjudicator. So long as the respondents were holding a preliminary inquiry and discovered evidence, which they believe to inculpate the petitioner, they could go about the exercise in the manner they found feasible. But, in the next step, when the stage came to establish the charges in disciplinary proceedings, the Inquiry Officer appears to have forgotten his role as an impartial arbiter and so also the respondents, their obligation to establish, by evidence, charges against the petitioner before their Domestic Inquiry Tribunal. The Inquiry Officer and the respondent Authorities mixed up both roles, virtually putting onus on the petitioner to establish his innocence. Even if it be that not bad, the Inquiry Officer acted on mere papers that were before him, without evidence being led at the inquiry by the establishment. 16. It hardly need be gainsaid that in a case where a delinquent employee does not appear or does not file a reply to the charge sheet, Rule 7 of the Rules mandates ex parte proceedings. Ex parte proceedings postulate that the establishment have to prove the charges against the delinquent by leading evidence, both documentary and oral. The Inquiry Officer acted on papers that were filed in support of the charges, mistaking them for evidence. In a domestic inquiry, the provisions of the Evidence Act certainly do not apply. But that does not mean that their quintessence about basic principles relating to proof and evidence are to be cast aside. 17. The Inquiry Officer in this case acted on a volume of papers, that were before him, without those papers being systematically proved as evidence in the inquiry. But that does not mean that their quintessence about basic principles relating to proof and evidence are to be cast aside. 17. The Inquiry Officer in this case acted on a volume of papers, that were before him, without those papers being systematically proved as evidence in the inquiry. This could be done by the Presenting Officer by examining relevant witnesses. In the process, the Inquiry Officer forgot the distinction between idle papers and evidence, on which he could act. The documents on record had to be proved by the establishment through appropriate means, which would then be properly galvanized into documentary evidence. This Court must remark that looking to the nature of the charges, which relate to tampering allegedly done by the petitioner in various documents, such as deposit challans tendered to the Bank, besides the Bank scroll, oral evidence of other functionaries at the Treasury and the Bank connected to the transaction, would be essential to bring home the charges. No relevant witness has been examined to establish that it was the petitioner, who tampered the figures in the documents and embezzled Government money. An Investigator’s plea, howsoever strongly found on the material collected, cannot be an Adjudicator’s determination. 18. Likewise, the obligation to intimate the date, time and venue of inquiry is of seminal importance. A Government servant, who does not file a reply to the charge sheet, which may not be the case here, is still entitled to appear at the inquiry and cross-examine witnesses for the establishment and make his submissions. In this case, it has been found for a fact that the date, time and venue of inquiry were not communicated to the petitioner. The failure of the respondents to do so, vitiates the proceedings albeit on a procedural facet. It would be profitable in this connection to refer to a decision of this Court in Syed Nazir Abbas Naqvi vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2003 (6) AWC 4996. It has been held in the context of an ex parte inquiry where the delinquent employee appeared before the Inquiry, Officer and said that he had nothing to offer in his defence, that the employee’s stand does not absolve the establishment to prove the charges by examining witnesses. It was held in Syed Nazir Abbas Naqvi (supra): “9. ............. It has been held in the context of an ex parte inquiry where the delinquent employee appeared before the Inquiry, Officer and said that he had nothing to offer in his defence, that the employee’s stand does not absolve the establishment to prove the charges by examining witnesses. It was held in Syed Nazir Abbas Naqvi (supra): “9. ............. Even if it is accepted that petitioner made any statement before the Inquiry Officer that he does not wish to say anything more, the Enquiry Officer could not have closed the proceedings and submitted the report only on the basis of petitioner's reply. It was incumbent upon him under the rules, as well as in observance of the principle of natural justice to have got the charges proved by examining the witnesses who may have proved the record in respect of the charges in accordance with law. In any case, the Inquiry Officer was required to give reasons for refusing summoning of witnesses. In the present case, the Court finds that considering the charges and the reply, the contractor in respect of whom it was stated by petitioner that the over writing was made by the Contractor himself and the Registrar, who was Drawing and Disbursing Officer and the member in charge were necessary witnesses, both to prove the charges, as well as defence witnesses...........” (Emphasis by Court) 19. Also relevant in this connection is the decision of this Court in Dukh Haran Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2015 (3) AWC 2227 . In Dukh Haran Prasad, it has been held: “15. It is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that the imposition of the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioners was a major penalty. If that be the admitted position, the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 was to be mandatorily followed. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that in the case of imposition of a major penalty, a failure to hold an oral inquiry is fatal. If there be any need to refer to authority for this proposition, one may only note the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sharad Kumar Varma v. State of U.P. and others; 2006 (110) FLR 630.” 20. If there be any need to refer to authority for this proposition, one may only note the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sharad Kumar Varma v. State of U.P. and others; 2006 (110) FLR 630.” 20. On the same point is the decision of a Division Bench of this Court Kaptan Singh vs. State of U.P., 2014 (5) AWC 5171 . It has been held in Kaptan Singh: “9. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Even if the delinquent employee does not request for personal hearing the burden of proving the charges normally being upon the department, the enquiry officer was under obligation to fix a date for such enquiry, with information to the delinquent and to conduct enquiry wherein he was required to examine documentary as well as oral evidence, if any, in support of the charges. Even if the delinquent employee did not participate in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer was duty bound to discharge his obligation as an Enquiry Officer of ascertaining the truth in respect of the charges levelled against him, on the basis of evidence, as to whether the same are proved against him or not. 10. Even if the delinquent does not demand personal hearing or does not give the names of witnesses with brief synopsis of points on which the wishes to examine or cross-examine the witnesses, the Inquiry Officer is not absolved from fixing a date of enquiry, with intimation to the delinquent and if he does not appear on the date fixed to either adjourn the enquiry to some other date or to proceed ex parte, as he deems fit. In either eventuality, he is required to hold inquiry, if delinquent is present, in his presence, if he is absent, ex parte. If oral evidence is referred in the charge-sheet, same is required to be recorded/examined, if not, even then the documentary evidence is required to be examined in the light of the charges for ascertaining the truth in respect thereof. The delinquent is also entitled to be intimated the date for oral enquiry, wherein the Inquiry Officer should confront the delinquent with the charges and the evidence in support thereof, put relevant queries to him, elicit and record his replies/response in respect thereof. The delinquent is also entitled to be intimated the date for oral enquiry, wherein the Inquiry Officer should confront the delinquent with the charges and the evidence in support thereof, put relevant queries to him, elicit and record his replies/response in respect thereof. Such oral enquiry is necessary as it gives an opportunity, to the delinquent to explain his conduct and to the Inquiry Officer to have a better perspective of the controversy, as, it is not always possible to discern the truth from written replies and documents which may not necessarily convey the complete truth. Even where the delinquent does not dispute the veracity of the documentary evidence, oral enquiry is necessary as he may still have an explanation to offer. 13. The reference to "documentary evidence" in Rule 7(iii) and (v) clearly indicates that the same have to be examined, as aforesaid, on the date to be fixed for enquiry, whether in the presence of the delinquent or in absentia (ex parte). This requirement though not express is implicit in the aforesaid rules, as is the requirement of holding an oral enquiry as it is a sine qua non for providing reasonable opportunity to defend and is part of the principles of natural justice under Articles 311 and 14 of the Constitution. Reference may be made in this regard to the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 : 2010 (4) AWC 4221 (SC); Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 ; State of U.P. v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, (1996) 10 SCC 702 and Imperial Tobacco Company of India Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348 and the judgments of this Court in R.K. Singh v. Director/Appointing Authority, Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute, Jhunsi, Allahabad and another, (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1282 : 2001 (3) AWC 1694 and Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Co operative Spinning Mills and others, (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1475 . The aforesaid requirement of law has not been followed in the instant case.” 21. There are very illuminating remarks on the point involved here to be found in the guidance of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 . In State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, it has been held: “28. There are very illuminating remarks on the point involved here to be found in the guidance of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 . In State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, it has been held: “28. 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 unrebutted 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.” (Emphasis by Court) 22. Bearing in mind the aforesaid position of law, this Court is of opinion that this petition deserves to succeed with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter, after issuing a charge sheet drawn up in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules, and further adhering to the principles of holding an inquiry, where there is likelihood of imposition of a major penalty. 23. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of dismissal from service dated 03.02.2017, passed by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot, Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. It will be open to the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry, after issuing a fresh charge sheet, drawn up in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules. The charge sheet shall be served upon the petitioner by Speed Post and Registered Post at the correct postal address, to be communicated by the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot by 15th January, 2021. The District Magistrate, Chitrakoot shall retain a postal track of any dispatch made by him to the petitioner. It will be open to the respondents to conclude the inquiry expeditiously, in accordance with law, after granting due opportunity to the petitioner, and bearing in mind the guidance in this judgment. 24. The District Magistrate, Chitrakoot shall retain a postal track of any dispatch made by him to the petitioner. It will be open to the respondents to conclude the inquiry expeditiously, in accordance with law, after granting due opportunity to the petitioner, and bearing in mind the guidance in this judgment. 24. The petitioner shall be entitled to receive his current salary from the date of reinstatement in service. The entitlement to receive the arrears will remain dependent on the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and the orders made there. During the period of the disciplinary proceedings, if the respondents choose to pursue them, it will be open to the respondents to post the petitioner, wherever they find it convenient. The petitioner will cooperate with the inquiry. 25. There shall be no order as to costs.