JUDGMENT : 1- Heard Sri H-G-S- Parihar learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms- Meenakshi Singh Parihar learned counsel for petitioner Sri Manjive Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent and Sri R-K- Upadhyay learned counsel for respondent no-4- 2- In proposed order notices to opposite party nos- 5 and 6 are dispensed with as no prejudice is caused to respondent nos- 5 & 6 by means of impugned order- 3- order under challenge is a punishment order dated 01-10-2020 passed by Additional Chief Secretary Cooperative Department Government of U-P- Lucknow awarding major punishment to petitioner reverting him from post of Additional Commissioner/Additional Registrar to post of Joint Commissioner/Joint Registrar in minimum pay scale withholding two increments with cumulative effect- 4- Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged but Sri Manjive Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that for redressal of his grievance present petitioner has got two alternative remedies and before exhausting those two remedies his writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India may not be entertained- 5- As per Sri Manjive Shukla since order impugned has been passed after due approval from Governor therefore petitioner may very well file either revision under Rule 13 or review under Rule 14 of UP Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999- Secondly alternative remedy to approach UP State Public Services Tribunal Lucknow is also available to petitioner- As per Sri Manjive Shukla both aforesaid grounds have been taken in counter affidavit- 6- I am also of considered opinion that alternative statutory remedy may not be circumvented and person/employee concerned should first avail alternative statutory remedy only then he should approach this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India- 7- In present case Sri H-G-S- Parihar learned Senior Advocate has submitted that petitioner has been discriminated from very beginning i-e- from date when petitioner was placed under suspension on 04-10-2018- Despite orders being passed by this Court neither inquiry was concluded within time nor final order has been passed well in time therefore this Court passed order dated 29-04-2019 allowing Writ Petition No- 9754 (S/S) of 2019 (Rabi Kant Singh vs- State of U-P- and others) setting aside suspension order permitting competent authority to take final decision in matter- 8- Sri Parihar has submitted that law is settled that if competent authority has decided to award major punishment to employee full fledged departmental inquiry should be order dated 29-04-2019 allowing Writ Petition No- 9754 (S/S) of 2019 (Rabi Kant Singh vs- State of U-P- and others) setting aside suspension order permitting competent authority to take final decision in matter- 8- Sri Parihar has submitted that law is settled that if competent authority has decided to award major punishment to employee full fledged departmental inquiry should be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law by affording an ample opportunity of hearing in two stages- First stage is at stage of inquiry proceedings wherein after receiving defence reply to charge-sheet date time and place shall be fixed for oral inquiry and onus would be upon authority to prove charges following principles of preponderance of probabilities- Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases has held that no major punishment order can be passed on basis of defence reply or supplementary defence reply to charge-sheet but same can be passed after conducting oral inquiry to prove charge by fixing date time and place- second stage would be incumbent employee shall be provided copy of inquiry report and explanation shall be called apprising to subjective satisfaction of disciplinary authority regarding proposed punishment and incumbent may file his explanation showing his bona fide- After considering aforesaid explanation disciplinary authority may pass appropriate orders- 9- In present case learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards para 26 & 27 of writ petition wherein he has categorically indicated that after submitting defence reply to charge-sheet no date time and place was fixed to conduct oral inquiry however one letter dated 26-12-2018 was issued seeking representation of petitioner on any working day and petitioner submitted his explanation on 31-12-2018 personally to Inquiry Officer- Those documents have been enclosed as Annexure nos- 15 & 16 to writ petition- By means of explanation dated 31-12-2018 petitioner has again categorically denied charges levelled against him and submitted his bona fide enclosing therewith some documents on that Sri Parihar has rightly submitted that aforesaid reply may be treated at best as supplementary defence reply but this letter dated 31-12-2018 of petitioner may not be treated as if he appeared before Inquiry Officer to examine/cross-examine material/person if any- Since date time and place for oral inquiry is fixed to examine/cross-examine relevant material and person however said exercise has not been carried out by Inquiry Officer- 10- Sri Manjive Shukla has drawn attention of this Court but this letter dated 31-12-2018 of petitioner may not be treated as if he appeared before Inquiry Officer to examine/cross-examine material/person if any- Since date time and place for oral inquiry is fixed to examine/cross-examine relevant material and person however said exercise has not been carried out by Inquiry Officer- 10- Sri Manjive Shukla has drawn attention of this Court towards para 24 of counter affidavit wherein recital has been given that Inquiry Officer has wrote a letter dated 26-12-2018 to petitioner fixing date for 31-12-2018 and petitioner appeared before Inquiry Officer but did not make any request for producing any material/witness- However no such date has been fixed for petitioner to appear before Inquiry Officer as considered above- 11- I am of considered opinion that letter dated 26-12-2018 may not be treated as if any date time and place was fixed for oral inquiry and preferring representation by petitioner dated 31-12-2018 on letter dated 26-12-2018 may not be sufficient to treat as date for oral inquiry- Therefore for all practical purposes no date time and place was fixed to conduct oral inquiry- Therefore in view of above instead of relegating matter to Public Service Tribunal for filing reference petition as it would be a futile exercise I hereby set-aside/quash order dated 01-10-2020 remanding back issue before disciplinary authority to direct Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry from stage of defect in terms of para 09 of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re:-Chairman LIC of India & others vs- A- Masilamani [reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 ] which reads as under :- "9- It is a settled legal proposition that once Court sets aside an order of punishment on ground that enquiry was not properly conducted Court cannot reinstate employee- It must remit concerned case to disciplinary authority for it to conduct enquiry from point that it stood vitiated and conclude same- (Vide: Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad etc-etc- v- B- Karunakar etc-etc- AIR 1994 SC 1074 ; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v- Secretary S-M- School for Girls & Ors- (2002) 10 SCC 293 ; U-P- State Spinning C- Ltd- v- R-S- Pandey & Anr- (2005) 8 SCC 264 ; and Union of India v- Y-S- Sandhu Ex-Inspector AIR 2009 SC 161 )-" 12- It is further directed that in case departmental inquiry is conducted against petitioner from stage of defect in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2002) 10 SCC 293 ; U-P- State Spinning C- Ltd- v- R-S- Pandey & Anr- (2005) 8 SCC 264 ; and Union of India v- Y-S- Sandhu Ex-Inspector AIR 2009 SC 161 )-" 12- It is further directed that in case departmental inquiry is conducted against petitioner from stage of defect in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re:- Chairman LIC of India (supra) same shall be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law by affording him ample opportunity of hearing subject to proper cooperation of petitioner with inquiry proceedings inasmuch as no inquiry proceedings/departmental proceedings may be concluded to its logical conclusion unless employee cooperates with inquiry proceedings- inquiry shall be concluded within a period of four months- Thereafter disciplinary authority may pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law as directed above with expedition without keeping issue pending for unlimited period- 13- Consequences to follow- 14- writ petition is accordingly allowed- No order as to costs-