JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. Heard Sri R.K.Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Nagar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Invoking extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner who is an employee of Jalkal Department, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj has assailed the order dated 5.8.2021 passed by the General Manager of the Jalkal Department, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj, namely, respondent No. 5 on the ground that the order has been passed dispensing with the services of the petitioner which is a major penalty without holding regular disciplinary proceedings as prescribed for under the relevant rules and regulations inasmuch as enquiry report that has been relied upon by the disciplinary authority dated 6.4.2021 was never supplied to the petitioner. 3. It is pleaded in the writ petition that initially petitioner was suspended vide order dated 22nd October, 2019 by the then General Manager Ratan Lal, Jalkal Department, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj on four charges which were quite vague in nature and the present General Manager Mr. Harish Chandra Balmiki was appointed as an enquiry officer. The charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 5.11.2019 with four charges without there being any copy of the complaint annexed with the charge-sheet in support of the charges. The petitioner submitted a detail reply on 25.11.2019 to the enquiry officer, but nothing proceeded further in the matter. 4. Sri Ratan Lal, the then General Manager came to be transferred by the State Government from Prayagraj to Nagar Nigam, Meerut vide order dated 29th April, 2020 and Sri Harish Chandra Balmiki who was enquiry officer in the matter of departmental enquiry against the petitioner came to be promoted and given the charge of General Manger of the Jalkal department Nagar Nigam Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as General Managaer). Mr. Harish Chandra Balmiki soon after taking the charge of General Manager passed an order dated 2nd May, 2020 cancelling all the orders of previous General Manager Ratan Lal and this included letter No. 205 dated 28.4.2020 whereby petitioner was reinstated in service pending enquiry. Thus, petitioner was reverted to the position of suspension. Mr. Harish Chandra Balmiki soon after taking the charge of General Manager passed an order dated 2nd May, 2020 cancelling all the orders of previous General Manager Ratan Lal and this included letter No. 205 dated 28.4.2020 whereby petitioner was reinstated in service pending enquiry. Thus, petitioner was reverted to the position of suspension. Petitioner wrote a letter to the present General Manager on 1st July, 2020 and requested that his suspension order dated 22nd October, 2019 be cancelled and he may be reinstated in service pending enquiry. Suddenly on 12th July, 2021 petitioner was served with a show-cause notice with as many as ten charges and with proposed punishment of dismissal from service and the petitioner was required to submit his reply within 15 days. Petitioner vide letter dated 24th July, 2021 sought further time to submit reply, however, instead of granting time to enable petitioner to file reply as is pleaded in the writ petition, respondent No. 5 passed an order on 5.8.2021 dismissing the petitioner from service on the basis of recommendation made by the enquiry officer in his report dated 6.4.2021. Thus, it is further pleaded in the writ petition that entire proceeding was a farce as no procedure prescribed for was followed, inasmuch petitioner was never served with any charge-sheet to submit reply and if any enquiry had been conducted, it had been on the back of the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that he was never served with copy of the enquiry report, nor afforded opportunity of hearing to contest the matter as sufficient plea has been taken by the petitioner regarding non compliance of the procedure prescribed for while imposing major penalty of dismissal from service. It is necessary here to go through the relevant provisions of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962) (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1962. Part III of the Rules, 1962 deal with punishment and appeals and Rule 27 thereof runs as under: ''27. It is necessary here to go through the relevant provisions of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962) (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1962. Part III of the Rules, 1962 deal with punishment and appeals and Rule 27 thereof runs as under: ''27. Punishment-Subject to the provisions of Section 110 of the Act, the following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as therein after, provided, be imposed upon the servants of the Mahapalika by the authority which is competent to make such appointment under Section 107 of the Act, notwithstanding that such an appointment in any particular case may have been made under Section 577 (f)(2) of the Act, namely : (i) fine in case of servants belonging to the inferior service only: Provided that the total amount of the fine shall not ordinarily exceed half month's pay of the servant concerned and it shall be deducted from his pay in instalments not exceeding one-quarter of this monthly salary; (ii) censure; (iii) withholding of increments including its stoppage at an efficiency bar; (iv) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Mahapalika by negligence or breach of orders; (v) suspension; (vi) reduction to a lower post or time-scale, or to lower stage in a time scale; (vii) removal from the service of the Mahapalika which does not disqualify from future employment. (viii) dismissal from the service of Mahapalika which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment; Explanation-The discharge- (a) of a person appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation; or (b) of a person appointed otherwise than under contract to hold a temporary appointment on the expiration of the period of the appointment or at any time in accordance with the terms of appointment; or (c) of a person engaged under contract in accordance with the terms of his contract; does not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of this rule.'' (emphasis added) 6. Rule 27 (viii) prescribes ''Dismissal' from service of Mahapalika, a punishment that would ordinarily disqualify such an employee from future employment. Thus it is the maximum punishment under the Rules, 1962 that can be inflicted upon an employee, and is, therefore, a major penalty. 7. Rule 31 lays down procedure for disciplinary proceedings and Rule 32 provides for conclusion of disciplinary proceeds drawn against an employee. Thus it is the maximum punishment under the Rules, 1962 that can be inflicted upon an employee, and is, therefore, a major penalty. 7. Rule 31 lays down procedure for disciplinary proceedings and Rule 32 provides for conclusion of disciplinary proceeds drawn against an employee. Both Rules 31 and 32 are reproduced hereunder: 31. Procedure for disciplinary proceedings.-(1) No order (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction on a criminal charge) of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank (which includes reduction to a lower post or time-scale or a lower stage in a time scale but excludes the reversion to a lower post of a person- who is officiating in a higher post) shall be passed on any servant of the Mahapalika unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged servant of the facts and circumstance against him. He shall be required with in a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires or if the authority concerned so directs an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegations as are not admitted. At that inquiry such oral evidence will be heard as the inquiring officer considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witness called as he may wish, provided that he officer conducting the inquiry may for sufficient reason to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. Neither the Mahapalika nor the servants of the Mahapalika shall be entitled to be represented by a counsel. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the finding and the grounds thereof. The officer conducting the enquiry may also separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged servant. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the finding and the grounds thereof. The officer conducting the enquiry may also separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged servant. (2) This rule shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him. All or any of the provisions of the rule may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing be waived, where there is difficulty in observing exactly the requirements of the rule and those requirements can in the opinion of the inquiring officer be waived without injustice to be person charged. (3) This rule shall also not apply where it is proposed to terminate the employment of either a temporary servant, or of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation. In such cases a simple notice of termination, which in the case of temporary servant, must conform to the condition of his service, will be sufficient. 32. (1) After an inquiry against a servant has been completed and after the punishment authority has arrived at provisional conclusions in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the servant charged shall, if penalty proposed is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank be supplied with a copy of the proceedings prepared under Rule 31 excluding the recommendations, if any in regard to punishment made by the officer conducting the inquiry and asked to show-cause by a particular date, which affords him reasonable time, why the proposed penalty should not be imposed on him. Provided that if for sufficient reasons the punishing authority disagrees with any part or whole of the proceeding prepared under Rule 31, the point or points of such disagreement, together with a brief statement of the grounds thereof, shall also be communicated to the officer or servant charged alongwith the copy of the proceedings under Rule 31. (2) Every order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be in writing and shall specify the charge or charges brought, the defence, if any, and the reasons for the order. (emphasis added) 8. The order impugned in the writ petition clearly indicates that General Manager Mr. (2) Every order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be in writing and shall specify the charge or charges brought, the defence, if any, and the reasons for the order. (emphasis added) 8. The order impugned in the writ petition clearly indicates that General Manager Mr. Balmiki has impugned penalty of dismissal from service in exercise of his power vested under Rule 27 (iii) on the basis of enquiry report dated 6.4.2021 of the enquiry officer Mr. Mushir Ahmad, the Additional Municipal Commissioner and of course, after issuing a show-cause notice dated 12.7.2021. Thus as per the impugned order, there has been absolute compliance of the procedure prescribed for under Rule 31 and 32 of the Rules, 1962 for taking an action of imposing major penalty of dismissal from service under Rule 27 (viii) of the Rules, 1962. However, since pleading raised in writ petition has been that no enquiry was held, no enquiry report was supplied and so none of the procedures prescribed for conducting disciplinary proceedings was followed, this Court summoned the original records of disciplinary proceedings in question vide order dated 23.2.2022. 9. I have gone through the entire original records relating to the proceedings that have resulted in passing of the order by respondent No. 5 dispensing with services of the petitioner and I find that in the matter of enquiry pursuant to the suspension order and the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner in the year 2019 the then enquiry officer Harish Chandra Balmiki who was later on promoted as General Manager, was removed as enquiry officer and in his place one Sri Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, Assistant Engineer, Zone 1 Jalkal Department Nagar Nigam Prayagraj was appointed as an enquiry officer vide letter No. 219 dated 29.4.2020. This order with letter number was cancelled by the newly appointed General Manager Harish Chandra Balmiki on 2.5.2020. There is of course, one letter addressed to Municipal Commissioner dated 5.5.2020 written by Accounts Officer, Sujit Kumar which was marked to the Additional Municipal Commissioner Mr. Mushir Ahmad by the Mayor, Prayagraj to conduct enquiry and submit report. 10. Mr. Mushir Ahmad writes to Mr. Harish Chandra Balmiki the then officiating General Manager asking him to send the details of enquiry till that time conducted by Mr. Balmiki vide his letter dated 5.5.2020. Mr. Mushir Ahmad by the Mayor, Prayagraj to conduct enquiry and submit report. 10. Mr. Mushir Ahmad writes to Mr. Harish Chandra Balmiki the then officiating General Manager asking him to send the details of enquiry till that time conducted by Mr. Balmiki vide his letter dated 5.5.2020. Mr. Balmiki replied to the letter vide his letter dated 12.5.2020 that original file was available in the office of Nagar Nigam and so he was unable to submit report. Municipal Commissioner Mr. Ravi Ranjan, the Municipal Commissioner also wrote to General Manager, Jalkal Department, Mr. Balmiki on 11.6.2020 to make available entire evidence/documents without which enquiry was not being proceeded with. This time Mr. Balmiki wrote to the enquiry officer Mr Mushir Ahmad a detailed letter on 18.062020 that entire records had been made available to him vide office letter No. D/346/Jalkal Vibhag/20 dated 15.5.2020 and that letters written for recording evidence and statement of witnesses were available on record, but the enquiry officer wrote him back that in connection with chargehseet dated 5.11.2019 issued to the delinquent employee, no evidence was available on record. He wrote that there was some reference to the police report and drawing of some proceedings against the delinquent employee but in connection with the charge-sheet dated 5.11.2019 the evidence be made available so that enquiry might be concluded. vide letter dated 21.7.2021. Mr. Balmiki reiterated that evidence were available in original in the records in the office of Nagar Nigam and there was no further evidence and so accordingly enquiry be concluded. Enquiry Officer gave last opportunity to Mr. Balmiki to make available requisite documents/evidence and to cooperate in the enquiry vide his letter dated 23.7.2020. Mr. Balmiki, the General Manager this time, writes back to enquiry officer on 30.7.2020 reiterating his previous stand and asks the enquiry officer to conclude enquiry as per the charges contained in the charge-sheet. Having found no records available, the enquiry officer Mr. Mushir Ahmad virtually dropped the enquiry proceedings on the ground that in connection with the charges, no evidence was got recorded before him and so the enquiry proceedings could not be continued for want of evidence. Having found no records available, the enquiry officer Mr. Mushir Ahmad virtually dropped the enquiry proceedings on the ground that in connection with the charges, no evidence was got recorded before him and so the enquiry proceedings could not be continued for want of evidence. This letter addressed to Municipal Commissioner dated 15.9.2020 is reproduced hereunder: ^^uxj v;kqDr egksn;] vkils okrkZ gqbZA egkÁcU/kd&tydy }kjk vc rd tydy foHkkx ds fuyfEcr deZpkjhx.k Jh fouksn dqekj iVsy] [kyklh ,oa Jh fnyhi pUnz] [kyklh ds tkap Ádj.k esa vkjksfir vkjksiksa ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh lk{; v/kksgLrk{kjh dks miyC/k ugha djk;k x;k gS] vr,o lk{; ds vHkko esa nh?kZdkyhu vof/k rd vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh xfreku j[kus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA rnuqlkj egkÁcU/k&tydy dks funsZf'kr djuk pkgsaA vij uxj vk;qDrA** 11. However, it seems when above letter was not replied to by General Manager, the Enquiry Officer decided to drop enquiry proceedings on the ground that no one was giving evidence against the delinquent employee who was in jail pursuant to police report dated 25.12.2020. This report of enquiry officer is titled as ''Enquiry Report' and seems to have been taken as one prepared under Rule 31(1) of the Rules, 1962. This report of enquiry officer is titled as ''Enquiry Report' and seems to have been taken as one prepared under Rule 31(1) of the Rules, 1962. In order to appreciate this enquiry report it is reproduced hereunder: ^^tkap vk[;k esjs }kjk Jh gfj'pUnz ckYehfd] egkÁcU/kd tydy foHkkx Á;kxjkt dh vk[;k fnukad & 05-03-2021 dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vk[;k ls Li"V gS fd Jh fnyhi pUnz Hkkjrh;] [kyklh }kjk fnukad & 25-12-2020 dks egkÁca/kd Jh gfj'pUnz ckfYedh ij tkuysok geyk fd;k x;k ftldh ÁFke lwpuk fjiksVZ] Fkkuk [kqYnkckn Á;kxjkt esa ntZ djkbZ x;h ,oa iqfyl foospuk ds mijkUr dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ds rgr vijk/kh deZpkjh Jh fnyhi pUnz Hkkjrh;k orZeku esa tsy esa fu#) gSA deZpkjh dk ;g vijkf/kd d`R; deZpkjh vkpj.k fu;ekoyh ds foijhr o vius vf/kdkjh ds Áfr ?kksj vuq'kklughurk o feld.MsDV gSA iwoZ esa Hkh Jh fnyhi pUnz Hkkjrh;] [kyklh }kjk vius deZpkjh lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk tydy foHkkx eq[;ky; [kq'k#ckx esa vf/kdkfj;ksa o deZpkfj;ksa ds chp Hk; o vkrad QSykdj tydy foHkkx ds dk;ksZa esa O;o/kku mRiUu djus ds fy, vkjksfir jgs gSaA Jh fnyhi pUnz Hkkjrh; [kyklh brus ncax o ÁHkko'kkyh vijk/kh gSa fd buds fo#) dksbZ Hkh vf/kdkjh o deZpkjh lk{;@xokgh nsus dh fgEer ugha dj ikrk gS ftldk Áek.k ;g gS fd tydy foHkkx ds dk;kZy; i= la[;k Mh0 1291@e0Á0@t0d0fo0@19&20 fnukad 05@11@2019 ds }kjk iwoZ esa vkjksih deZpkjh dks vkjksi&i= fn;k x;k Fkk ftlds mRrj esa vijk/kh deZpkjh us tydy foHkkx ds vfHk;Urkx.k dks gh ÁR;{kn'khZ cukdj ?kVuk dh tkudkjh fy, tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k ftlds Øe esa tkap vf/kdkjh@v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk vfHk;Urkx.k ls C;ku fy;k x;k fdUrq vfHk;Urkx.k mDr deZpkjh ds Hk; o vkrad ls brus T;knk ÁHkkfor Fks fd os mlds le{k ?kVuk ls eqdj x;sA bl Ádkj vkjksih deZpkjh ds dFku@mRrj ij ekSf[kd lquokbZ Hkh dh xbZA rnvuqlkj Jh fnyhi pUnz Hkkjrh; [kyklh mn.M] vuq'kklughurk o vijkf/kd Áo`fr dk deZpkjh gSA deZpkjh dh lR;fu"Bk lafnX/k gSA vk;s fnu tydy foHkkx esa Hk; ,ao vkrad dk ekgkSy iSnk djus dk vknh gSA deZpkjh dh vijkf/kd Áo`fRr ds dkj.k O;ogkfjd tkap fd;k tkuk laEHko ugha gSA vk[;k Ásf"kr gSA ¼eq'khj vgen½ vij uxj vk;qDr@tkapvf/kdkjh** (emphasis added) 12. Upon perusal of the above, I find that the recommendations made by Mushir Ahmad to drop the enquiry on 6.4.2021 neither amounts to a formal enquiry report itself worth its name as such, nor even on the basis of any such enquiry report a disciplinary authority could have proceeded to impose order of punishment in the nature of major penalty. 13. The same day while the alleged enquiry report was submitted by Additional Municipal Commissioner Mushir Ahmad he made yet another recommendation on 6.4.2021, which is reproduced hereunder: ^^ uxj vk;qDr egksn;] d`i;k xr~ i`”B&8 Jh gfj'pUnz ckYehfd] egkÁcU/kd tydy&Á;kxjkt dh vk[;k fnukad&05-03-2021 ij vius vkns'k fnukad&09-03-2021 dk voyksdu djus dk d"V djsaA esjs }kjk egkÁcU/kd&tydy foHkkx dh vk[;k dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] ftlls Li”V gS fd Jh fnyhi pUnz Hkkjrh;] [kyklh o vU; fgLVªh'khVj vijkf/k;ksa }kjk fnukad&25-12-2020 dks Jh gfj'pUnz ckYehfd] egkÁcU/kd&tydy ij tkuysok geyk fd;k x;kA bl lEcU/k esa iqfyl foHkkx Fkkuk [kqYnkckn esa ÁFke lspuk fjiksVZ la0 635@2020 ntZ djk;h x;h gSA Jh fnyhi pUnz Hkkjrh; ¼[kylh½ tydy foHkkx dk ;g vkijkf/kd d`R; deZpkjh vkpj.k fu;ekoyh ds foijhr gSA bl Ádkj deZpkjh }kjk vius mPpkf/kdkjh ds fo#) ?kksj vuq'kklughurk o feldUMd ¼dnkpkj½ fd;k x;k gSA nks"kh deZpkjh ds fo#) vcrd dksbZ vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh xfBr ugha dh x;h gS vkSj u gh vkjksi i= ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gSA egkÁcU/kd&tydy foHkkx ds deZpkfj;ksa ds fu;qDr Ákf/kdkjh o n.Mkf/kdkjh gS fu;qfDr Ákf/kdkjh@n.Mkf/kdkjh dks Lor% laKku ysdj ekeys esa dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg,A vr% egkÁcU/kd tydy foHkkx dks funsZ'k nsuk pkgs fd os ekeys@?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa nks"kh deZpkjh Jh fnyki pUnz Hkkjrh; ¼[kyklh½ ds fo#) fu;ekuqlkj vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh rFkk vkjksi&i= xfBr dj dk;Zokgh djsa ¼eq'khj vgen½ vij uxj vk;qDrA** ''(emphasis added) 14. The above letter contains recommendation to the effect that proper disciplinary proceedings be drawn against Dilip Chandra, namely the petitioner by formally framing charges. Notings upon the above recommendation show that Secretary, Nagar Nigam, made an endorsement for initiating disciplinary proceedings against suspended employees not naming the petitioner at all. This recommendation of the Municipal Commissioner dated 6.4.2021 further carries an endorsement of an officer addressed to Secretary, to initiate disciplinary proceedings as per recommendation. So I do not find there to be any enquiry report available on record to enable General Manager to pass order of dismissal from service. This recommendation of the Municipal Commissioner dated 6.4.2021 further carries an endorsement of an officer addressed to Secretary, to initiate disciplinary proceedings as per recommendation. So I do not find there to be any enquiry report available on record to enable General Manager to pass order of dismissal from service. There being only report dropping enquiry proceedings and a letter of recommendation by Mushir Ahmad, Additional Municipal Commissioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings by framing charges and thereby issuing charge-sheet, such earlier enquiry report or recommendation cannot be said to be a recommendation of enquiry officer to dismiss the petitioner from service. How the General Manager Mr. Balmiki treated the enquiry report dropping the enquiry and recommendations made for framing charges as an enquiry report is questionable. Surprisingly he, instead of instituting enquiry afresh, has proceeded to take action of imposing punishment as disciplinary authority. Records do not reveal any disciplinary enquiry being instituted upon recommendation of Additional Municipal Commissioner dated 6.4.2021. The Court also fails to understand as to why enquiry officer, Mr. Mushir Ahmad, if in his wisdom had rightly dropped enquiry for want of evidence and yet made recommendation for disciplinary action. Here report should have been taken to mean for instituting a proper formal enquiry as contemplated under Rule 31 of the Rules, 1860. An enquiry officer can only hold a delinquent employee guilty of the charges by conducting a formal enquiry as a consequence thereof and then additionally he can recommend for a punishment as per rules but without conducting a formal enquiry showing his inability to hold enquiry, he could not have made recommendations for an action for inflicting punishment upon the delinquent employee. Here I may refer the case of A.N.D' Silva v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 130 , wherein it was held : ''In the communication addressed by the Enquiry Officer the punishment proposed to be imposed upon the appellant if he was found guilty of the charges could not properly be set out. The question of imposing punishment can only arise after enquiry is made and the report of the Enquiry Officer is received. It is for the punishing authority to propose the punishment and not for the enquiry authority.'' 15. Thus, it is clear that no enquiry as such was ever ordered against the petitioner except the one that was instituted pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 5.11.2019. It is for the punishing authority to propose the punishment and not for the enquiry authority.'' 15. Thus, it is clear that no enquiry as such was ever ordered against the petitioner except the one that was instituted pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 5.11.2019. The order impugned does state that petitioner was suspended on 22nd October, 2019 and in the enquiry conducted in the matter petitioner was held guilty but no such enquiry report is traceable, instead there is a report of enquiry officer dropping the enquiry dated 15.9.2020 and then a report dated 6.4.2021 showing his inability to hold enquiry. 16. It further transpires from the record that there has been some issue between earlier General Manager and the present one and the employees have been made to be victimized because of the internal politics. It can only be termed as unfortunate that order of dismissal from service has come to be passed on serious charges without holding any enquiry and referring to such enquiry report, which by no stretch of imagination can be treated as formal enquiry report within the meaning of Rule 31 (1) of the Rules, 1962. 17. Still further, though very unfortunate but the records reveal that while an officer was appointed as an enquiry officer in the matter of enquiry pursuant to the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner, such officer did not initiate any step to ensure that disciplinary enquiry instituted is brought to its logical end and surprisingly no sooner did he acquired the position of disciplinary authority as General Manager, he proceeded to pass order against the petitioner. First enquiry officer appointed was Mr. Harish chandra Balimiki and as he did not conclude the enquiry, the then General Manager Ratan Lal proceeded to reinstate the petitioner vide letter No. 205 dated 28.4.2020 and appointed Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, Assistant Engineer, Zone-I to conclude enquiry within 15 days and the moment enquiry officer Mr. Harish Chandra Balimiki got promoted as General Manager, he cancelled the letter No. 205 reverting the petitioner to the stage of suspension and also cancelled letter No. 219 dated 29.4.2020 whereby Sri Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, Assistant Engineer, Zone-I was appointed as an enquiry officer. Similarly again while Additional Municipal Commissioner Mr. Mushir Ahmad was appointed as an enquiry officer, he showed his inability to proceed with enquiry as Mr. Similarly again while Additional Municipal Commissioner Mr. Mushir Ahmad was appointed as an enquiry officer, he showed his inability to proceed with enquiry as Mr. Harish Chandra Balimiki did not supply the requisite papers as has come to be recorded in the order of the then Municipal Commissioner dated 11th June, 2020 directing the General Manager to supply the papers and while for non supply of papers, the enquiry officer virtually proceeded to drop the enquiry vide his letter dated 15.5.2020 and later on even concluded that enquiry could not be held vide report dated 6.4.2021 and yet at the same time accused the petitioner as responsible for the same. How the enquiry officer who earlier held General Manager responsible for not producing documentary evidence to proceed with enquiry suddenly turned the table to petitioner’s side to demonstrate that petitioner was responsible for insufficient evidence and so action be taken against him. The records do not disclose that enquiry officer fixed any date to hold enquiry. No records of formal enquiry proceedings are available at all except internal departmental communications mostly between the enquiry officer and the General Manager. It is this report dated 6.4.2021 that became a tool in the hands of General Manager to pass the order impugned. It is very unfortunate that officers of the level of Additional Municipal Commissioner of a Municipal Corporation like Prayagraj and General Manager of the Jalkal department of Nagar Nigam are playing with law and rules to mould it in the manner it suits them. In my considered view meeting the norms of Natural justice in administrative action is sine qua non. Public servants/public officials while exercising power/authority must ensure fairness in action. Their act and conduct must pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution that envisages fairness and not arbitrariness in action by public authorities. In my considered view meeting the norms of Natural justice in administrative action is sine qua non. Public servants/public officials while exercising power/authority must ensure fairness in action. Their act and conduct must pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution that envisages fairness and not arbitrariness in action by public authorities. I must quote here what Professor Wade and Professor Christopher discuss about natural justice in administrative law relying upon certain authorities, in their celebrated treatise Administrative Law ''In its broadest sense natural justice may mean simply 'the natural sense of what is right and wrong, and even in its technical sense it is now often equated with 'fairness' But in administrative law natural justice is a well-defined concept which comprises two fundamental rules of fair procedure: that a man may not be a judge in his own cause; and that a man's defence must always be fairly heard. In Courts of law and in statutory tribunals it can be taken for granted that these rules must be observed. But so universal are they, so 'natural', that they are not confined to judicial power. They apply equally to administrative power, and sometimes also to powers created by contract. Natural justice is one of the most active departments of administrative law. There are both broad and narrow aspects to consider. The narrow aspect is that the rules of natural justice are merely a branch of the principle of ultra vires. Violation of natural justice is then to be classified as one of the varieties of wrong procedure, or abuse of power, which transgress the implied conditions which Parliament is presumed to have intended. Just as a power to act 'as he thinks fit' does not allow a public authority to act unreasonably or in bad faith, so it does not allow disregard of the elementary doctrines of fair procedure. As Lord Selborne once said. There would be no decision within the meaning of the statute if there were anything of that sort done contrary to the essence of justice.'' (Administrative law by Professor Wade and Professor Christopher, 10th edition, page No. 372) (emphasis added) 18. Applying the above principles to the facts of this case, I find that in the present case no formal enquiry was held, at all as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 31 of the Rules, 1962. Applying the above principles to the facts of this case, I find that in the present case no formal enquiry was held, at all as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 31 of the Rules, 1962. Rule 31(1) prescribes preparation of charge-sheet with definite charges, person charged shall be given a reasonable time to put in his written statement of his defence, if hearing is pressed then oral enquiry, recording of oral evidence, opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witness if charged employee so desires. Enquiry proceedings shall contain record of evidence and statement of findings and the grounds thereof. Rule 32 provides if punishment to be awarded is in the nature of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, then servant charged shall be provided with the proceedings prepared under Rule 31 giving him reasonable time to submit reply. The disciplinary authority, the General Manager, though in this case issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 12.7.2021 but it neither refers to the charges that were in the charge-sheet nor, accompanies the alleged enquiry report dated 6.4.2021. The show-cause notice contains new set of charges and explanation was invited in respect thereof which should have been meant for initiating a disciplinary proceedings afresh and not for imposing major penalty. 19. In view of the above, the act and conduct of the respondents and the procedure followed by them in utter defiance to the rules framed for such purposes, cannot be countenanced under any circumstances. 20. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, it seems difficult to expect justice to the employees of Nagar Nigam at the end of these authorities. They need to mend their ways of working so that congenial atmosphere is created in the local body concerned which is constituted for public service. 21. Sri J.Nagar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pratik J. Nagar appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5,6 and 7 as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for State respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not place any rule or regulation under which such procedure to dismiss an employee from service has been prescribed. 22. 21. Sri J.Nagar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pratik J. Nagar appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5,6 and 7 as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for State respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not place any rule or regulation under which such procedure to dismiss an employee from service has been prescribed. 22. From the perusal of the original records and the discussions made above, the Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that earlier enquiry pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 25.11.2019 stood dropped on 6.4.2021 and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the enquiry officer's decision has not able to hold enquiry dated 6.4.2020 in the form of enquiry report, was ever set aside, inasmuch as Mushir Ahmad has only recommended for initiation of fresh enquiry by framing charges and issuing charge-sheet, and in so far as the order of the punishment of dismissal of petitioner from service is concerned, it is without any enquiry being held at all. The show-cause notice based upon certain charges issued afresh on 12.7.2021 can only be meant for instituting a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and merely on that basis, even if it remained unresponded, major penalty of dismissal could not have been inflicted. The disciplinary authority issued the said show-cause notice not on the basis of any disagreement to the enquiry report, containing points of disagreement together with the brief statement of grounds thereof as contemplated under the proviso to rule 32(1) of the Rules, 1960. 23. Further the show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner while he was in jail and so he sought time to submit reply after he would be released vide letter dated 24.7.2021. This letter of the petitioner is not on record. Even under these circumstances institution of a fresh disciplinary enquiry upon the charges set out in the show-cause notice was a must under Rule 31(1) of the Rules, 1962. 24. It is not disputed that petitioner is a permanent and confirmed employee and there is a procedure prescribed for to institute disciplinary proceedings, if there are charges against such an employee and, therefore, in the absence of any charge-sheet and the enquiry report, procedure followed to impose major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be approved of under any circumstances. Thus conclusion drawn by Mr. Thus conclusion drawn by Mr. Mushir Ahmad in his report dated 6.4.2021 does not amount to a finding as an outcome of any formal enquiry proceeding and cannot be treated an enquiry report as such and so resultant action by the disciplinary authority under the order impugned in the matter is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed. 25. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the order of dismissal from service dated 5.8.2021 is hereby quashed. 26. As I have already observed that records do reveal that nothing proceeded further in the matter of enquiry pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 5.11.2019, and that enquiry proceeding stood actually dropped vide enquiry officer's report dated 6.4.2021 (supra), petitioner cannot be retained under suspension and, therefore, order of suspension of the petitioner dated 22.10.2019 is also set aside. 27. Petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Liberty rests with the respondents to proceed afresh, if they so desire, strictly in accordance with law.