JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, leaned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the U.P. Cooperative Dairy Federation. 2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26/29-9-2015 passed by the opposite party no. 4 i.e. Chairman, Administrative Committee, U.P. Cooperative Dairy Federation, Lucknow, awarding two punishments against the petitioner i.e. (i) he has been repatriated to his basic pay, and (ii) Censure entry for the year 2013-14 and his integrity for the year 2009-10 has been declared doubtful. 3. At the very outset Sri Srivastava has informed that during the pendency of the present writ petition the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation. 4. The questions to be considered are that : (i) As to whether the inquiry officer may give his findings beyond the charges so leveled against the petitioner by means of charge-sheet ? (ii) As to whether the disciplinary authority may award any punishment contrary to the findings of inquiry report without giving any notice to the petitioner on the disagreement of the findings? 5. The precise facts giving rise for disposal of the aforesaid issues are that the petitioner was serving under the opposite parties no. 4 & 5. In the year 2009 he was serving on the post of Manager, Grade-IV (Finance) at Barabanki. While serving on the aforesaid post the petitioner has been served the charge-sheet dated 21.7.2014 (Annexure no. 7) wherein there were six charges against the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the departmental inquiry and disputed all the allegations so leveled against him, thereafter the inquiry officer concluded his inquiry and submitted his findings before the disciplinary authority on 30.3.2015(Annexure no. 11). 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has been exonerated from charges no. 1 to 4. However, charge nos. 5 and 6 were said to be proved partially against the petitioner. Precisely charges no. 11). 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has been exonerated from charges no. 1 to 4. However, charge nos. 5 and 6 were said to be proved partially against the petitioner. Precisely charges no. 5 and 6 are being reproduced herein below: ^^vkjksi la0&5 nqX/k la?k ckjkcadh ds tujy Áek.kd la0 339 fnukad 31-03-2010 }kjk :0 115414-83 dh /kujkf'k ykHk gkfu lek;kstu [kkrs dks MsfcV djrs gq, vius O;fDrxr [kkrs esa bl /kujkf'k dks ØsfMV dj =qfViw.kZ &#2338ax ls Hkqxrku ÁkIr fd;k x;k gSA ;g ik;k x;k fd mDr /kujkf'k dkuiqj nqX/k la?k dh ftl ,Mokbt la0 27@01 fnukad 31-03-2010 dk mYYks[k djrs gq, mijksDr ys[kk Áfof"V dh x;h gS] mldk ys[kkadu dkuiqj nqX/k la?k ls ÁkIr nqX/k la?k ckjkcadh ds foRRkh; o"kZ 2009&10 o 2010&11 ds ystj ,dkmUV esa ugha gSA mDr ls Li"V gS fd vki }kjk QthZ ,Mokbt ds vk/kkj ij mijksDr ys[kk Áfof"V dj nqX/k la?k ckjkcadh ls :0 115414-83 dh /kujkf'k dk vkgj.k fd;k x;k gS] ftlds fy;s vki nks"kh gS ,oa vkidh lR;fu"Bk Hkh lafnX/k gSA lk{;& 1- ckjkcadh nqX/k la?k ds foRRkh; o"kZ 2009&10 ds ykHk gkfu lek;kstu [kkrs dh Nk;k ÁfrA 2- dkuiqj nqX/k la?k ls ÁkIr foRRkh; o"kZ 2009&10 o 2010&11 ds ystj ,dkmUV dh Nk;kÁfrA vkjksi la[;k 6 nqX/k la?k ckjkcadh dks fnukad 1-4-08 ls fnukad 31-3-13 rd :0 1]05]74]656-25 dh gkfu;kW gqbZA ekg vÁSy 13 ls fnlEcj 13 rd nqX/k la?k }kjk Ásf"kr VsªfMax vkijsfVax fooj.k ds vqulkj :0 53]20]115]00 dh udn gkfu;kW gks pqdh gSA foRRkh; Ok"kZ 2012&13 ds lfefr deh'ku dh /kujkf'k :0 33]53]495-00 tujy okmpj la0 218 fnukad 31-03-2014 ,oa foRRkh; o"kZ 2013&14¼1-4-2013 ls 31-12-2013½ ds lfefr deh'ku dh /kujkf'k :0 1945449-00 tujy okmpj la0 219 fnukad 31-03-2014 }kjk MsfcV dh x;h gSA blds vfrfjDr foRRkh; o"kZ 13&14 esa ykHk gkfu lek;kstu [kkrs esa :0 38]22]496-51 dh /kujkf'k fnukad 26-1-14 rd MsfcV dh x;h gSA bl Ádkj nqX/k la?k ckjkcadh dks 1-4-08 ls fnlECkj] 13 rd :0 2]50]16]211-76 dh gkfu gqbZ gS ftlds fy;s vki mRRkjnk;h gSA lk{;& 1- nqX/k la?k ckjkcadh dh ekg vÁSYk 13 ls fnlEcj] 13 rd nqX/k la?k }kjk Ásf"kr VsªfMax vkijsfVax fooj.k dh Nk;kÁfrA 2- nqX/k la?k ckjkcadh ds tujy okmpj la0 218 o 219 fnukad 31-03-2014 dh N;k ÁfrA 3- nqX/k la?k ckjkcadh ds ykHk gkfu [kkrs ds lek;kstu dh Nk;k ÁfrA 4- nqX/k la?k ckjkcadh dh foRRkh; o"kZ 2008&09 ls o"kZ 2012&13 rd ds lUrqyu i= dh Nk;k Áfr;kWaA 7. The perusal of the aforesaid charges reveal that charge no. 5 says that a sum of Rs. 115414.83/- has been credited by the petitioner in his account in stead of crediting the same in the account of Dugdh Sangh concerned, therefore, he has usurped that amount. The findings of inquiry officer regarding aforesaid charge clearly says that after perusing the personal account details of the petitioner as well as the other relevant papers of the Dugdh Sangh concerned the said charge is not proved against the petitioner. It has been further indicated by the inquiry officer that the said charge appears to be erroneously leveled against the petitioner as there might have been some narrational error in the accounts. However, the inquiry officer has observed submitted that the petitioner must have informed the headquarter about the aforesaid entry which caused confusion, therefore, the charge is partially proved against the petitioner. 8. Sri Srivastava has submitted that if the amount in question has not been credited in the personal account of the petitioner rather it was a narrational error then that amount cannot be said to have been usurped by the petitioner so for all practical purposes the petitioner should have been exonerated from that charge. However, indicating that such information regarding aforesaid erroneous entry which has not been intimated to the headquarter should be intimated by the petitioner is an additional charge for which no explanation has been called from him, rather there was no such charge in the charge-sheet. Therefore, as per trite law the inquiry officer may not give his findings beyond the charge for which the ample opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the employee. 9. So far as the charge no. 6 is concerned which says that the Dugdh Sangh, Barabanki has suffered the losses to the tune of Rs. 25016211.76 w.e.f. 1.4.2008 to December, 2013 for the reason that proper entries have not been made in the accounts of the Sangh. 10. Sri Srivastava has submitted that it is not very clear in this charge as to what lapse has been committed by the petitioner, only this much can be gathered that such Dugdh Sangh, Barabanki has suffered losses. The inquiry officer has given his clear findings on the aforesaid charge that for the loss in question the petitioner may not be held liable. The inquiry officer has given his clear findings on the aforesaid charge that for the loss in question the petitioner may not be held liable. However, being the In-charge (Finance) he should have taken due care and precaution to avoid the losses. 11. Sri Srivastava has further submitted that if the petitioner has been exonerated from the charge that he is not responsible for the losses in question then the additional charge to the effect that being In-charge (Finance) he should have taken due care and precaution to avoid the losses is unwarranted and misconceived inasmuch as no such charge has been leveled against the petitioner vide charge no. 6. 12. Therefore, as per Sri Srivastava in all six charges leveled against the petitioner the petitioner has been exonerated by the inquiry officer for all practical purposes inasmuch as the additional charges so leveled against the petitioner while giving findings on charge no. 5 and 6 the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing as said additional charges were not the part of charges no. 5 and 6, therefore, to that extent the findings of inquiry officer is unwarranted, uncalled for and non-est in the eyes of law. 13. Sri Srivastava has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 12 to this writ petition which is explanation to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority wherein he has explained that he had preferred a letter dated 2.4.2010 to the General Manager, Finance and Accounts, apprising that the amount to the tune of Rs. 115414.83/-has not been credited in his account. He had enclosed that letter dated 2.4.2010 with his explanation. He has also apprised the disciplinary authority that he was not in-charge of the Dugdh Sangh, Barabanki at that point of time and it was not his administrative authority to run the Dugdh Sangh, Barabanki inasmuch as he was only In-charge (Finance) and he discharged his duties with utmost sincerity and dedication which is very much clear perusing the inquiry report that none of the charges have been found proved against him. Therefore, he requested from the disciplinary authority that he might be exonerated from the charges / allegations. 14. Sri Srivastava has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. Therefore, he requested from the disciplinary authority that he might be exonerated from the charges / allegations. 14. Sri Srivastava has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 13 which is an order passed by the same disciplinary authority in the case of Sri A.K. Pachori, the then in-charge of Dugdh Sangh, Barabanki wherein charge no. 8 leveled against Sri Pachori is the same charge which has been leveled against the present petitioner by means of charge no. 6. Sri Pachori despite being in-charge of Dugdh Sangh has been exonerated from this charge. However, the preliminary inquiry is said to have been directed against him. 15. In view of the above Sri Srivastava has submitted that the in-charge of the Dugdh Sangh, Barabanki who should be held responsible administratively for the charge regarding loss of the Dugdh Sangh has been exonerated but the present petitioner despite being exonerated from that charge has been held responsible for administrative lapse, however, he was not administrative in-charge but was the In-charge (Finance). 16. Sri Srivastava has also submitted that he has categorically indicated all the aforesaid facts and circumstances in detail in para 28,29,30,31,32 and 34 of the writ petition but no denial of the aforesaid contentions of writ petition has been made in para 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit rather those contentions have been accepted as admitted. Therefore, the punishment order dated 26/29-9-2015 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. 17. Per contra, Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the U.P. Cooperative Dairy Federation has submitted that if this Court finds that the inquiry officer has given his finding beyond the charge, the matter may be remanded back to the inquiry officer to submit his appropriate findings. Further, if the disciplinary authority without being disagreed from the findings of the inquiry officer has treated charge nos. 5 and 6 proved, the matter may be remanded back to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate orders on the findings of the inquiry officer. Sri Shukla has also submitted that if it is a case of defective inquiry or defective punishment order then in view of the settled law the matter may be remanded back to the competent authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 18. Sri Shukla has also submitted that if it is a case of defective inquiry or defective punishment order then in view of the settled law the matter may be remanded back to the competent authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the inquiry officer may not travel beyond the charges, therefore, such findings of inquiry officer which are beyond the charges no. 5 and 6 are patently unwarranted, uncalled for and non-est in the eyes of law. Law is settled that if the charge (s), as indicated in the charge-sheet, has / have been declared as 'not proved' then nothing can be said to be 'proved' or 'partially proved' on the basis of additional findings regarding any allegation which is not the subject matter of the enquiry in question and such findings, if any, shall be treated as perverse finding. Hence, the charge no. 5 and 6 shall be treated to be not proved inasmuch as the inquiry officer has himself indicated that the charge no. 5 and 6 are not proved against the petitioner. 19. Now question comes as to whether the disciplinary authority may award any punishment on the basis of inquiry report wherein none of the charges are proved against the petitioner, without being disagreed thereon, the legal position is very clear to the effect that the disciplinary authority may not award any punishment banking upon such findings of inquiry officer, without being disagreed on such finding and without issuing any show cause notice or seeking explanation from the petitioner on the point of disagreement. Since the inquiry officer has said that charges no. 5 and 6 are partly proved so disciplinary authority may not legally say that both the charges are proved as said by him in the punishment order. If the disciplinary authority was of the view that both the charges should be treated proved, a show cause notice of disagreement must have been issued seeking explanation from the petitioner. In absence of aforesaid legal requirement the impugned punishment order shall not survive as it would be nullity in the eyes of law. Therefore, the impugned punishment order dated 26/29-9-2015 is also nonest in the eyes of law. 20. In absence of aforesaid legal requirement the impugned punishment order shall not survive as it would be nullity in the eyes of law. Therefore, the impugned punishment order dated 26/29-9-2015 is also nonest in the eyes of law. 20. So far as the contention of Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the U.P.C.D.F. is concerned that the matter may be remanded back from the stage of defect of inquiry or from the stage of defect of punishment order is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that the inquiry officer has conducted the departmental inquiry as per law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as the petitioner is not aggrieved from the manner the inquiry has been conducted, therefore, I do not find any defect in the inquiry proceedings. So far as the additional findings given by the inquiry officer regarding charge no. 5 and 6 are concerned, he cannot give such finding beyond the charges as observed above and admittedly no specific charges were leveled against the petitioner by means of charge-sheet on which the inquiry officer has given that findings, therefore, to that extent such findings are perverse and are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further, the impugned punishment order has been passed by the disciplinary authority without issuing any show cause notice on the disagreement from the findings of inquiry officer, therefore, such punishment order is not sustainable in the eyes of law on that score. Hence, I do not find any good ground to remand back the issue to the inquiry officer or disciplinary authority to pass appropriate orders, more particularly, in view of the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner has retired from service. 21. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. 22. The impugned order dated 26/29-9-2015 passed by the opposite party no. 4 is hereby quashed. 23. Consequences to follow. 24. No order as to costs.