JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 17.2.2020, Sri Vikas Gathalwal, Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam is present and has filed an affidavit. Original record has also been produced before Court. 2. Heard Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for U.P. Jal Nigam. 3. Sole petitioner Satish Kumar Kapoor has come to this Court by means of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India and has challenged three orders. First is the order dated 19.4.2002, whereby punishment of recovery of Rs. 51,290/- in 25 installments has been imposed upon him and Censure has also been awarded; second is the order dated 23.8.2002 whereby punishment of recovery of Rs. 26,093/- and Censure has been awarded; and, third is the order dated 7.9.2002 whereby petitioner has been compulsory retired under Fundamental Rule (hereinafter referred to as "FR") 56-C in public interest. 4. In 1998, petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in U.P. Jal Nigam and posted at Ghaziabad. A show-cause notice dated 24.2.1998 was received by him stating that amount deducted from salary of employees towards General Provident Fund ought to have been invested in long term bonds or should have been deposited in the saving account of Post Office but that has not been done and instead the amount has been spent in some other heads, therefore, he caused loss of earning of interest thereon to the Government employees. There were some other charges of loss caused to Jal Nigam in installation of hand pumps and work performed in harijan basti. He was required to show-cause as to why recovery be not initiated against him and his integrity should also be withheld. Petitioner submitted reply dated 3.4.1998.. 5. Petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 19.11.1998 by Sri Vishnu Kumar Agarwal, Superintendent Engineer/Enquiry Officer containing two charges wherein also petitioner submitted reply, denying charges. Enquiry Officer submitted report without holding oral enquiry by fixing date, time and place for recording evidence etc. Without serving any copy of Enquiry Report upon petitioner straightway punishment order was passed on 23.8.2002 for recovery of 10 per cent of Rs. 26,092.5/- i.e. Rs. 26,093/- in 13 installments and 'Censure'. In respect of earlier show-cause notice dated 24.2.1998, an order of recovery of Rs. 51,290/- and Censure was passed. 6. Without serving any copy of Enquiry Report upon petitioner straightway punishment order was passed on 23.8.2002 for recovery of 10 per cent of Rs. 26,092.5/- i.e. Rs. 26,093/- in 13 installments and 'Censure'. In respect of earlier show-cause notice dated 24.2.1998, an order of recovery of Rs. 51,290/- and Censure was passed. 6. Thereafter, a Screening Committee was constituted under FR 56 and looking to the service record and aforesaid penalty orders, it recommended petitioner for compulsory retirement and vide order dated 7.9.2003, petitioner has been compulsory retired. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents, it is stated that orders dated 19.4.2002 and 23.8.2002, both have caused minor penalty and are appealable under Rule 11 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1999"). Hence, petitioner must avail statutory alternative remedy. Entire service record of employees, who have attained 50 years, was placed before Screening Committee and the same recommended petitioner for compulsory retirement, hence, order of retirement of petitioner has been passed on 7.9.2002 in public interest. Screening Committee has examined entire service record and particularly last ten years' service record which includes two punishment orders dated 19.4.2002 and 23.8.2002 though Annual Confidential Roll of petitioner for the last ten years i.e. 1992-1993 to 2001-02 had no adverse entry as such. 8. Sri Nigam, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that first order of punishment dated 19.4.2002 has been passed after a show-cause notice and its reply but order itself is wholly non-speaking and does not show consideration of petitioner's reply whereby allegations were denied and detailed reply has been given. 9. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner in 1999 when Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 as applicable in State of U.P. (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1930") were applicable. For imposing minor penalty, Rule 55-B provided procedure as under: "55-B. (a) Whenever the punishing authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course it may impose the penalty of- (i) censure, or (ii) stoppage at an efficiency-bar: Provided that it shall not be necessary to frame formal charges against the Government servant concerned or to call for his explanation. (b) In all cases where a punishing authority imposes the penalty of- (i) withholding increments in the time scale at stages where there is no efficiency bar, or (ii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders, formal proceedings embodying a statement of the offence of fault, the explanation of the person concerned, and the reasons for the punishment shall be recorded: Provided that it shall not be necessary to record such proceedings in cases where a Government servant's increment in the time-scale of his pay, at any stage other than an efficiency bar is stopped due to his integrity remaining uncertified." 10. A bare perusal of aforesaid Rule clearly shows that it was incumbent upon Authority concerned to pass a reasoned order. Impugned order dated 19.4.2002 ex facie cannot said to be compliance of aforesaid Rules and procedure, hence, I find it difficult to sustain the same. 11. Now, I come to order dated 23.8.2002 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). This order was passed after service of charge-sheet by Enquiry Officer. 12. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that Disciplinary Authority looking to the seriousness of the charge-sheet, initially were of the view that major penalty may be imposed upon petitioner if charges are proved, hence, decided to hold regular enquiry. 13. Admittedly, it is also evident from record that no oral enquiry was conducted. Enquiry Officer after service of charge-sheet and receipt of reply from petitioner, submitted Enquiry Report after perusal of record himself. 14. It has been held time and again that if charges are not admitted by charged employee and enquiry has been initiated in a matter wherein major penalty can be imposed but no procedure for holding oral enquiry is observed, even minor penalty in such a case cannot be sustained. 15. Learned counsel appearing for respondents contended that since minor penalty has been imposed ultimately, therefore, even if the procedure laid down for major penalty has not been followed, punishment order cannot be said to be bad. 16. This aspect has already been considered by this Court in Sohan Lal v. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and others, 2013(6) ADJ 250 and Court has held as under: "34. 16. This aspect has already been considered by this Court in Sohan Lal v. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and others, 2013(6) ADJ 250 and Court has held as under: "34. We are clearly of the view that the ultimate result shall not govern the manner of preceding disciplinary proceedings inasmuch as the authorities, if found no proof of serious charges to justify major penalty, therefore, imposed minor penalty, it would not distract from the fact that proceedings were initiated for major penalty and despite denying adequate opportunity to delinquent employee, i.e., by not holding oral inquiry, he was able to show shallowness of charges which satisfy the disciplinary authority that major penalty is not warranted. If adequate opportunity would have been afforded to delinquent employee, he could have demonstrated that no penalty whatsoever is liable to be inflicted upon him, since, the charges in entirety, are baseless etc. It is the inception of proceedings which will govern the manner of disciplinary proceedings to be conducted and not the ultimate result. Therefore, mere fact that lastly only minor penalty could have been inflicted upon petitioner, would not dilute his legal right that disciplinary inquiry when initiated must have been held in conformity with procedure prescribed, attracting provisions, applicable at the inception of inquiry." 17. This view has also been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Service Bench No. 965 of 2014, State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Housing & Urban Planning Department v. Hira Lal Singh Yadav and another, decided on 23.5.2017. 18. In view thereof, order of punishment orders cannot be sustained since procedure laid down in the Rules for major penalty has not been followed and after service of charge-sheet only, reply was received then enquiry report was submitted. 19. Now, coming to order of compulsory retirement, it cannot be doubted that both the punishment orders could be taken into consideration at the time of forming opinion of compulsory retirement of petitioner under FR 56. Annual Confidential Roll of petitioner for the last ten years has also been considered by Screening Committee which did not have any adverse entry and Screening Committee admittedly has passed order of compulsory retirement on the basis of aforesaid two punishment orders, which have been set aside by this Court. Annual Confidential Roll of petitioner for the last ten years has also been considered by Screening Committee which did not have any adverse entry and Screening Committee admittedly has passed order of compulsory retirement on the basis of aforesaid two punishment orders, which have been set aside by this Court. That being so, when aforesaid punishment orders themselves are set aside, order of compulsory retirement founded on the opinion formed after taking into account the aforesaid punishment orders also cannot be sustained. 20. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 19.4.2002, 23.8.2002 and 7.9.2002 are hereby set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.