JUDGMENT : Defect no.5, as has been pointed out by the office pertaining to page nos.168 and 169 of the memo of appeal i.e., the enquiry report, has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit, dated 08.02.2022, as such, the defect no.5 stands removed. 2. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 24.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5994 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment dated 22.09.2015, by which, the writ petitioner has been dismissed from service and an order of recovery of Rs.18,28,557/-, was passed, has been quashed and set aside with a direction to reinstate the writ petitioner in service as also with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of inquiry after granting adequate and sufficient opportunity to the writ petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- The writ petitioner while working as Forest Range Officer, Koderma, subjected to departmental proceeding by issuance of memo no.881 dated 06.04.2009 under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) 1930. The departmental proceeding has proceeded which ultimately culminated into the order of punishment, by which, the writ petitioner was dismissed from service as also the direction of recovery of Rs.18,28,557/-, was passed. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by challenging the order of punishment dated 22.09.2015 by taking the plea of non-observance of principle of natural justice since, according to the writ petitioner, the charge-sheet has not been supplied in time as also the relevant documents. The aforesaid fact, however, has been disputed by the respondent State. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, has quashed and set aside the order of punishment and the entire enquiry proceeding with liberty to the respondents to proceed, in accordance with law, from the stage of appointing a fresh Inquiry Officer and proceed strictly following the principles of natural justice, if so advised. Further, if the respondents choose to proceed in the proceeding from the stage of appointing a fresh Inquiry Officer, then the entire proceeding must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order and the writ petitioner shall be reinstated in service and on the question of back wages, the respondents shall take a decision in accordance with law and pass necessary order which shall be communicated to the writ petitioner. 4. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned G.A.-II appearing for the appellants-State has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there may not be any interference with the administrative decision of the administrative authority so far as it relates to the departmental proceeding. 5. Submission has been made that the learned Single Judge has gone into the wrong direction about non-fulfillment of the principle of natural justice, which led in quashing and setting aside the order of punishment. According to the learned counsel, while doing so, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the nature of charge as also the fact that the writ petitioner has not taken such point before the Inquiry Officer. 6. While on the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that the fact about non-observance of principle of natural justice by not submitting the memorandum of charge at the appropriate time as also the relevant documents, has well been appreciated by the learned Single Judge and only after coming to such conclusion which was evident from the material available on record, the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order of punishment. The matter has been remitted before the authority concerned from the stage of enquiry to initiate enquiry afresh after following the principle of natural justice and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from infirmity. The matter has been remitted before the authority concerned from the stage of enquiry to initiate enquiry afresh after following the principle of natural justice and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from infirmity. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has not closed the entire issue, rather, it has been remitted from the stage of enquiry and as such, it cannot be said that the State has been prejudiced by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, rather, the learned Single Judge has only remitted the matter before the concerned disciplinary authority to pass order afresh but after providing due opportunity, i.e., after providing the relevant documents and as such, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge while quashing and setting aside the order on that ground has committed an error, therefore, submission has been made that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may quashed and set aside. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 8. The undisputed fact of this case is that the writ petitioner while working as Forest Range Officer, was subjected to departmental proceeding. The writ petitioner has participated in the enquiry and demanded the memorandum of charge as also the relevant documents. The memorandum of charge has not been supplied in time as also the relevant documents. However, the writ petitioner has demanded it from the Inquiry Officer and at the belated stage, the document was supplied to the writ petitioner. The departmental proceeding, although, was concluded by inflicting punishment vide order dated 22.09.2015. The aforesaid order was questioned by the writ petitioner on the ground of non-observance of principle of natural justice. The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the documents, has found substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner and as such, came to conclusion about non-observance of the principle of natural justice, since, the memorandum of charge was not supplied in time as also the relevant document was not served upon the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the documents, has found substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner and as such, came to conclusion about non-observance of the principle of natural justice, since, the memorandum of charge was not supplied in time as also the relevant document was not served upon the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge has directed for reinstatement of the writ petitioner as also remitted the matter from the stage of enquiry with a direction upon the disciplinary authority to initiate proceeding afresh after observing the principle of natural justice. 9. This Court is required to see as to whether in the facts of the given case the memorandum of charge as also the relevant document was supplied at the appropriate stage or not and if not supplied, what would be its consequence in the departmental proceeding. 10. This Court, before answering the issue, deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, under which, the departmental proceeding was initiated, for ready reference, Rule 55 of the Rules, 1930 reads as under:- “55. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement [or reduction] shall be passed on a member of a Service (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a Criminal Court or by a Court-Martial) 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 to the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required, within 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 direct an oral inquiry shall be held. He shall be required, within 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 direct an oral inquiry shall be held. At that inquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer, conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. 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, in exceptional cases, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing be waived, where there is a difficulty in observing exactly the requirement of the rule and those requirements can be waived without injustice to the person charged. The full procedure prescribed in this rule need not be followed in the case of a probationer discharged in the circumstances described in Explanation II to rule 49. In such cases, it will be sufficient if the probationer is given an opportunity to show cause in writing against the discharge after being apprised of the grounds on which it is proposed to discharge him and his reply duly considered before orders are passed.” It is evident from the aforesaid provision that while in exercise of power conferred under the aforesaid rule, the disciplinary authority is required to furnish the concrete memorandum of charge as also the relevant documents appended with the memorandum of charge, so as to provide the delinquent employee an adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 11. So far as the fact of the given case is concerned as also on going through the inquiry report, it is evident that the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits, the Inquiry Officer was changed time and again. It also appears that while appointing the new Inquiry Officer, no information was furnished to the writ petitioner. It also appears that while appointing the new Inquiry Officer, no information was furnished to the writ petitioner. It further appears that initially the writ petitioner was supplied the memorandum of charge-sheet without appended with the relevant documents. However, subsequently received the entire charge-sheet but without any documents. It further appears from the inquiry report that the writ petitioner approached the State Government requesting him to direct the Inquiry Officer to hand over the documents which are relevant and referred in the charge-sheet and in pursuant thereto, the State Government vide its letter no.829 dated 11.03.2011 had requested the concerned Officer to supply the documents to the writ petitioner and complete the inquiry proceeding after affording opportunity to the writ petitioner, therefore, the aforesaid direction of the State authority clearly goes to suggests that the document which ought to have been supplied by the disciplinary authority at the time of service of memorandum of charge as per the requirement of Rule 55 of the Rules, 1930 but the same was supplied only on the basis of direction passed by the State Government that to in the belated stage. Further, the bias of the Inquiry Officer also remained there, since the relevant document has not been handed over, as it appears from its letter dated 21.12.2010, appended as Annexure-4 series to the writ petition, which was written to the concerned D.F.O.-cum-Presenting Officer that if the said officer was not present on a particular date then the writ petitioner should have camped in his office to procure the documents. Therefore, it is evident from the material available on record that there is non-fulfillment of the requirement of Rule 55 of the Rules, 1930 under which the departmental proceeding has been initiated wherein it has been stipulated that the delinquent employee is required to be given adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard before taking adverse decision. Non-supply of documents or its belated supply cannot be construed to be an adequate and sufficient opportunity having been provided by the disciplinary authority to the writ petitioner. 12. The law is well settled, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , wherein, due to non-supply of the relevant documents, the departmental proceeding has been held to be vitiated. 12. The law is well settled, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , wherein, due to non-supply of the relevant documents, the departmental proceeding has been held to be vitiated. For ready reference, paragraph-28 to 31 of the aforesaid judgment, reads as under:- “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. 29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service. 31. In Shaughnessy v. United States [97 L Ed 956 : 345 US 206 (1952)] (Jackson, J.), a Judge of the United States Supreme Court has said: (L Ed p. 969) “… Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied.” 13. 31. In Shaughnessy v. United States [97 L Ed 956 : 345 US 206 (1952)] (Jackson, J.), a Judge of the United States Supreme Court has said: (L Ed p. 969) “… Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied.” 13. This Court is aware with the fact about jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India showing interference with the decision passed by the Administrative Authority, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & Others vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SSC 610 wherein at paragraphs 12 and 13 thereof, the following guidelines have been laid down for showing interference in the decision taken by the disciplinary authority and not to interfere with the decision which reads hereunder as: “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. 1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). 13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). re-appreciate the evidence; (ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. vs. Abrar Ali [ (2017) 4 SCC 507 ], following guidelines have been laid down for interference by the High Court in the matter of punishment imposed on conclusion of the departmental proceeding. The extract of relevant passages, i.e., para 13 and 14, are referred hereinbelow: “13. Contrary to findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the High Court accepted the version of the Respondent that he fell ill and was being treated by a local doctor without assigning any reasons. It was held by the Disciplinary Authority that the Unit had better medical facilities which could have been availed by the Respondent if he was really suffering from illness. It was further held that the delinquent did not produce any evidence of treatment by a local doctor. The High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts which tantamounts to reappreciation of evidence. It is settled law that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaiya, [ (2011) 4 SCC 584 ], this Court held as follows: "7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations." It is, thus, evident from the judgment rendered in Union of India & Others vs. P. Gunasekaran (Supra) and Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. vs. Abrar Ali (Supra) that in which situation the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the order of punishment and one of the condition is the finding recorded by the enquiry officer being based upon the non- consideration of factual aspect of the matter and in a case of violation of principle of natural justice. 14. But, this Court after having gone through the facts of the given case and comes to the conclusion which is based upon the Government letter no.829 dated 11.03.2011 itself that the relevant documents ought to have been provided along with the memorandum of charge, as per the requirement of Rule 55 of the Rules, 1930. But admittedly, the aforesaid documents had not been supplied or belatedly been supplied, and as such, there is clear cut violation of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930. It also requires to refer that if the departmental proceeding has been decided to be initiated against the delinquent employee under the specific provision, the mandate of the said provision, would mandatorily be required to be followed. It also requires to refer that if the departmental proceeding has been decided to be initiated against the delinquent employee under the specific provision, the mandate of the said provision, would mandatorily be required to be followed. In the case in hand, the departmental proceeding has been initiated under the provision of Rule 55 of the Rules, 1930 which mandates supply of the relevant documents along with the memorandum of charge itself as also the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but from the material available on record and as per the discussion made hereinabove, this Court has come to the conclusion that mandate of the provision of Rule 55 of the Rules, 1930, has not been followed by the State Government. 15. Therefore, as per the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment referred hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the order of dismissal since has been awarded without following the principle of natural justice and if in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has interfered with the order of dismissal, however, leaving it open upon the State Government to proceed with the departmental proceeding afresh from the stage of enquiry, which according to the considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 16. Accordingly, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant appeal lacks merit and as such, the same is dismissed. However, the liberty which has been granted by the learned Single Judge to initiate departmental proceeding afresh, it is left open upon the State Government to initiate departmental proceeding afresh, which is directed to be concluded within the period of six months’ from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. 17. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, I.A.Nos.6975 of 2021, 610 of 2022 and 611 of 2022 stand disposed of.