JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate assisted by Mr. Akshat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Vasudha Singh, Brief Holder and Mr. Rajiv Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 7.11.2016 and 15.11.2016, passed by respondents 2 and 3, contained in Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. A further writ of mandamus commanding respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service along with all consequential benefits of service including arrears of salary as also payment of current salary along with other benefit of service has also been prayed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2009-2010, when the petitioner was posted as Senior Clerk in the office of Civil Hospital, Lingiganj, Farrukhabad, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.1.2010 on the charge of financial irregularities by Director (Administration), Medical & Health Services, U.P. Lucknow. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (In short, Rules of 1999). A charge sheet dated 6.7.2010 was issued by the enquiry officer whereby three charges were levelled against the petitioner. After receiving the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply on 30.7.2010 denying all the three charges. Enquiry was completed by the enquiry officer and the respondent No.2, i.e. the Director (Administration) issued a show cause notice dated 12.1.2012 along with the copy of the enquiry report. Reply was sought from the petitioner which he gave on 28.1.2012 denying all the charges levelled against him. Punishment order of dismissal dated 13.4.2012 was passed by respondent No.2. Against the dismissal order, an appeal was filed before the appellate authority, i.e. the Principal Secretary, Medical & Health, Government of U.P., Lucknow on 11.5.2012. The appeal was decided by way of dismissal, by respondent No.1 vide order dated 24.7.2013. The punishment order dated 13.4.2012 and the appellate order dated 24.7.2013 were assailed before the State Public Services Tribunal by filing claim petition No.854 of 2014 Jagdish Narayan Katiyar Versus State of U.P. and others on two grounds, firstly, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and secondly, the departmental enquiry has not been conducted by the enquiry officer in accordance with Rules of 1999 and in violation of principle justice. The tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 1.7.2015 has allowed the claim petition and set aside the punishment order dated 13.4.20212 and the appellate order dated 24.7.2013, The matter was remanded to the respondents to conduct denovo enquiry from the stage of giving reply to the charge sheet. The operative part of the judgment is extracted below : ^^mijksDr leh{kk ds Ádk'k esa ;kph gh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA n.Mkns'k fnukad 27-04-2012@02-05-2012 ¼layXud la[;k&,&1½ ,oa fnukad 25-07-2013 ¼layXud la[;k&,&2½ dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk foi{khx.k dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fdos bl fu.kZ;@vkns'k dh Áekf.kr Áfrfyfi ÁkIr gksus ds 15 fnuksa ds vUnj ;kph ds fo#) fu;ekuqlkj foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh gsrq mls fuyEcu dh voLFkk esa lsok esa rRdky ÁHkko ls iquZLFkkfir djsa lkFk gh lsok ls inP;qfr dh frfFk 27-04-2012@02-05-2012 ls iquLFkkZfir fd;s tkus dh frfFk rd dh vof/k dks ;kph dh fuyEcu dkyof/k ekurs gq, lsok esa fujarjrk Ánku djsaA mDr foHkkxh; tkap dk;Zokgh] pwafd ;kph }kjk vkjksi i= dk] mRrj fn;k tk pqdk gS blfy, iqu% mlls mRrj ÁkIr djus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gS] ds Lrj ls ÁkjaHk djds cpk; dk leqfpr volj Ánku djrs gq, vkSj lacaf/kr leLr vfHkys[k miyC/k djkrs gq, bl vkns'k dh Áekf.kr Áfr ÁkIr gksus dh frfFk ls rhu ekg esa laiw.kZ tkap@vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh fof/kor iw.kZ djsa rFkk iqu% dh x;h tkap ds fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij ;kph ds ikfj.kkfed lsok ykHkksa@iSdostst ds laca/k esa ldkj.k o eq[kfjr vkns'k }kjk ikfjr djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA** 4. By the aforesaid order dated 1.7.2015, the respondents were directed to conclude the departmental proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order of the tribunal. This order dated 1.7.2015 was assailed before this court in Service Bench No.17226 of 2016 State of U.P. and others Versus Jagdish Narayan Katiyar and another. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 2.8.2016. However, further three months' time was granted to the petitioner State of U.P. to complete the enquiry. 5. It is in purported compliance of the judgment and order of the tribunal dated 1.7.2015 and the order dated 2.8.2016 passed by this Court, a four Member enquiry committee was constituted who after conducting enquiry submitted its report dated 24.10.2016. Consequently, the impugned punishment order contained in Annexure No.1 and the notice, Annexure No.2 have been passed. 6. 5. It is in purported compliance of the judgment and order of the tribunal dated 1.7.2015 and the order dated 2.8.2016 passed by this Court, a four Member enquiry committee was constituted who after conducting enquiry submitted its report dated 24.10.2016. Consequently, the impugned punishment order contained in Annexure No.1 and the notice, Annexure No.2 have been passed. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision in the Rules of 1999 to constitute enquiry committee. The language of Rules of 1999 is simple and the enquiry officer is to be appointed, and not a Committee. No date time and place of enquiry has been fixed. No enquiry ofifcer has been appointed. No show cause notice along with the enquiry report for the proposed punishment order as mandated under Rule 9(4) of Rules of 1999 has been given to the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of principle of natural justice. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on judgment of Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Versus Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131 and the judgment and order dated 9.5.2013 passed by this Court in Service Single No.5189 of 1995 Jalaluddin Ansari Versus State of U.P. and others. It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that this is the second time, deliberately, enquiry has not been conducted as per Rules of 1999 in spite of order passed by the tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 1.7.2015 only with a view to save the higher officers which is apparent from the letter written by the Chief Manager of SBI, Farrukhabad dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) which confirms that the signatures of Drawing and Disbursing Authority on three cheques were found correct and no complaint has been received from the CMO office regarding forged payment of cheques from the captioned account. It is submitted that this device has been adopted by the disciplinary authority only to save the concerned Chief Medical Officer and Deputy C.M.O. and deliberately on the second time, enquiry has been conducted dehors the rules. 7. Learned Standing counsel for the State opposed the petition. 8. The petitioner is a Class-III employee of the State Government and his service conditions are governed by Rules of 1999. 7. Learned Standing counsel for the State opposed the petition. 8. The petitioner is a Class-III employee of the State Government and his service conditions are governed by Rules of 1999. Rule 3 of Rules of 1999 provides minor and major penalty. Major penalty includes removal from service. Rule 7 of Rules of 1999 provides the procedure for imposing major penalty in which the enquiry shall be held. Rule 7 of Rules of 1999 is extracted below : "7. Procedure for imposing major penalties- Before imposing any major penalty on a Government Servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner: (i) The Disciplinary Authority may himself inquiry into the charges or appoint an Authority Subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. (ii) The Facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the from of definite charge or charges to be called charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be approved by the Disciplinary Authority : Provided that where the Appointing Authority is Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary, as the case may be, of the concerned department. (iii) The charge farmed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government Servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidences and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same along with oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet. (iv) The charged Government Servant shall be required to put in a written statement of his defence in person on a specified date which shall not be less than 15 days from the date of issue of charge-sheet and to state whether he desires to cross-examine any witness mentioned in the charge-sheet and whether desires to give or produce evidence in his defence. He shall also be informed that in case he does not appear or file written statement on the specified date, it will be presumed that he has none to fumish and inquiry officer shall proceed to complete the inquiry ex-parte (v) The charge-sheet, along with the copy of the documentary evidences mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged Government Servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records in case the charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation : Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charge Government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer. (vi) Where the charged Government Servant appears and admits charges, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his report to the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of such admission. (vii) Where the charged Government Servant denies the charge the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-shoot and record their oral evidence in presence of the charge Government Servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidences, the Inquiry officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government Servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness (viii) The inquiry officer may summon any witnesses to give evidence or require any person to produce documents before him in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Departmental inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of witnesses and production of documents) Act 1976 (ix) The Inquiry Officer may ask any question he pleases, at any time of any witness or from person charged with a view to discover the truth or to obtain proper proof of facts relevant to charges. (x) Where the charged Government Servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding in spite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. (x) Where the charged Government Servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding in spite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in charged Government Servant. the charge-sheet in absence of the charged government servant. (xi) The disciplinary Authority, if it considers if necessary to do so, may by an order appoint a Government Servant or a legal practitioner to be known as "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the charge. (xii) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government Servant to present the case on his behalf but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner of the disciplinary Authority having regard to the circumstance of the case so permits : Provided that the rule shall not apply in following cases: (i) Where any major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) Where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied, that for reason to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to held an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or (iii) Where the Governor satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the state, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules." 9. A perusal of Rule 7(i) of Rules of 1999 shows that the disciplinary authority either may himself inquire into the charges or appoint an authority subordinate to him as the inquiry officer to inquire into the charges. As said above, no enquiry officer as mandated under Rule 7(i) has been appointed in this case; instead a four Member Committee has been appointed for which there is no provision. Rule 7(iv) and (v) mandates providing list of witnesses and their statements to be served upon the charged government servant personally or through registered post. As said above, no enquiry officer as mandated under Rule 7(i) has been appointed in this case; instead a four Member Committee has been appointed for which there is no provision. Rule 7(iv) and (v) mandates providing list of witnesses and their statements to be served upon the charged government servant personally or through registered post. Rule 7(vii) provides that where the charged government servant denies the charges, the enquiry officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidences, the Inquiry officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government Servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence. 10. Admittedly, along with the charge sheet, the proposed documentary evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the charges along with the oral evidence has not been given in this case which is evident from perusal of the charge sheet. Admittedly, no oral enquiry has been conducted. As no witnesses were proposed in the charge sheet, consequently, no witnesses were called by the enquiry officer to prove the charges. The petitioner has also not been called for recording his oral evidence. In sum and substance, no oral hearing at all has been conducted. Sub Rule (x) further provides that even if the charged government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the enquiry or any stage of the proceeding in spite of the service of the notice on him, Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged government servant. 11. In this case, admittedly, no date time and place was fixed for enquiry. The enquiry appears to have been done in flagrant violation of Rule 7 of Rules of 1999. 12. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged government servant. 11. In this case, admittedly, no date time and place was fixed for enquiry. The enquiry appears to have been done in flagrant violation of Rule 7 of Rules of 1999. 12. Even after submission of enquiry report, Rule 9 (4) of Rules of 1999 provides that in case the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub rule (2) to the charged govt. servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires within a reasonable specified time. This mandatory requirement under Rule 9(4) has also not been adhered to. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) has held that the Enquiry officer acts 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. Relevant portion from the judgment is reproduced as under : "A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-Rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the Government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the enquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the enquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet. Since the Government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the enquiry officer. Since the Government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the enquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the enquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. Enquiry 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." 14. In this case, admittedly, no oral evidence has been examined. Copy of the documents has neither been provided to the petitioner nor the same has been proved by leading oral evidence, hence could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the petitioner. 15. In Jalaluddin Ansari's case (supra), this Court has also held that the oral enquiry is must and without leading oral evidence, guilt could not have been proved, relying on the documentary evidence. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted below : "In State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that under Rule 7 (x), it is provided as under:- "(x) Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding in spite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant." 27. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant." 27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-Rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the Government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the enquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the enquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet. Since the Government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the enquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the enquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. 28. An enquiry officer acting as 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." In Abdul Salam's case (supra) Division Bench of this court has also held as under:- "15. The principles of natural justice demand that an application for summoning a witness by the delinquent officer should be considered by the enquiry officer. It was obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an order in the said application. He could not refuse to consider the same. It is not for the Railway Administration to contend that it is for them to consider as to whether any witness should be examined by it or not. It was for the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. A disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. He could not refuse to consider the same. It is not for the Railway Administration to contend that it is for them to consider as to whether any witness should be examined by it or not. It was for the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. A disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An enquiry officer is a quasi-judicial authority. He, therefore, must perform his functions fairly and reasonably which is even otherwise the requirement of the principles of natural justice." In the case of Roop Singh Negi Versus Punjab National Bank, while emphasizing the importance of principles of natural justice in the matter of departmental enquiry, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 15. We have noticed here-in-before that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. Appellant being an employee of the bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. Appellant being an employee of the bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the Enquiry Officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left." In the case of Smt. Rajwati Sharma Versus U.P. State and others, a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (Justice Pradeep Kant) was a member, while emphasizing the need to hold a full fledge departmental enquiry even in case where the charged employee had admitted in his statement the loss of certain files which were in his possession, observed as under: "12. The employee in the instant case, only made a statement of fact, in his reply, about the loss of 14 files. Since the files were misplaced, there could not have been any denial of the said fact by any person, including the charged employee. The question was, whether Shri Krishna was responsible for the loss of file or that he was guilty of any misconduct. It is also possible that in case, enquiry had been held, circumstances might have come to the fore, establishing, that even though the files were misplaced which were supposed to be in the custody of the deceased employee but even then there was some valid defence or mitigating circumstances for not awarding of major punishment or on finding that no fault could be attributed to him, he might have been exonerated. In the case of Govind Lal Srivastava Versus State of U.P. and others, a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (Justice Pradeep Kant) was a member, has observed as under: "12. It is cardinal principle of law that in a domestic enquiry the charges levelled against the delinquent officer have to be proved by the department itself, that too from the material on record and if necessary, by adducing evidence. It is cardinal principle of law that in a domestic enquiry the charges levelled against the delinquent officer have to be proved by the department itself, that too from the material on record and if necessary, by adducing evidence. In doing so, it is obligatory on the enquiry officer to give opportunity to the delinquent officer to controvert, rebut such evidence or to adduce such evidence, which may falsify or belie the case of the department. In nutshell the delinquent officer has a right to demolish the case of the department or prove his innocence, but in no case the delinquent officer is required to disprove the charges before they are put to proof by the enquiry officer through agency of the department. The letter issued by the erstwhile enquiry officer only says that the petitioner if intends to have a personal hearing, may appear on 20.10.1992 before him. It is difficult to understand as to what the enquiry officer meant by saying personal hearing, whether it included the right to adduce evidence, right of cross-examination and whether it also indicated that any witness would be examined on that date or documentary evidence, which is on record or the record would be looked into and in what respect personal hearing would be done. It is always essential in any proceedings where right of defence or onus of establishing a charge is involved, clear orders and intimation about the date, time or place and the purpose for which the date has been fixed, should be given by the officer, who is holding the enquiry. The delinquent would be hardly knowing as to what reply and what additional facts, he should mention before the enquiry officer, when charges are not being said to be proved and even before the steps being taken for proving the charges. It is only when the charges are sought to be proved that the delinquent has a right to controvert and rebut the same. 13. It is only when the charges are sought to be proved that the delinquent has a right to controvert and rebut the same. 13. The procedure of domestic enquiry need not be detailed by us, but it is established principle of law that an enquiry commences when a charge sheet is issued, a reply is required to be submitted by the delinquent officer, the delinquent is at liberty to ask for the documents in case the documents are mentioned in the charge sheet but the copies of the same have not been annexed with the charge sheet, or the documents, on which the charges are likely to be proved and in case copy of some documents can not be supplied then opportunity of inspection of such documents has to be provided. Opportunity of inspection of documents should be provided in a manner so that the charged officer has free access to the record and for which date, time and place has to be fixed. It is only after the aforesaid stages are over, the reply is submitted by the delinquent officer and on receipt of the reply, if the enquiry officer finds that the charges are denied or in other words, they are not accepted, obligation lies upon the enquiry officer to proceed with the enquiry. Even mere non-submission of the reply to the charge sheet or not asking for opportunity of producing witness or evidence would not in itself be sufficient to hold that opportunity was not availed by the delinquent, though given. The enquiry officer, on the date, time and place which is to be fixed by him and intimated to the delinquent officer, has to proceed with the enquiry by first asking the department to prove the charges by adducing such evidence, which may be necessary for the purpose and reply upon the documents, which may be relevant and thereafter has to afford an opportunity to the delinquent to cross-examine the witnesses so adduced or to produce any witness or adduce any evidence in rebuttal. The delinquent officer also has a right to show to the enquiry officer that the evidence, which is sought to be relied upon, is either in admissible or hearsay or could not be relied upon for any other valid reason. The delinquent officer also has a right to show to the enquiry officer that the evidence, which is sought to be relied upon, is either in admissible or hearsay or could not be relied upon for any other valid reason. Of course, if enquiry officer, after receipt of the reply fixes date, time and place and informs the same to the delinquent for appearing and participating in the enquiry but the delinquent even then does not appear, the enquiry can be proceeded in his absence, which may though be an ex-parte enquiry but would not be vitiated on the ground that opportunity was not given or if opportunity was given the same was not availed of, by the delinquent. In a case like this where ex-parte enquiry is to be conducted, the enquiry officer is not still absolved of getting the charges proved from the evidence/material on record. In the case of Ambika Prasad Srivastava Versus State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others, the Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (Justice Pradeep Kant) was a member, while emphasizing the importance of principles of natural justice in the departmental enquiry held as under: "In view of the admitted fact that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and he was not informed about the date, time and place for holding the enquiry nor was supplied the documents which were demanded by him, and the enquiry report was based simply on the reply submitted by the petitioner, we find that the view taken by the Tribunal otherwise, is palpably erroneous. The entire proceedings are vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and not affording opportunity to the petitioner." It is not such a case where no oral evidence was required as the guilt could not have been proved by relying upon the documents alone. If the witnesses were not required to be examined in support of the charges, even then it was incumbent upon the enquiry officer to have fixed the date, time and place after submission of the reply to the charge-sheet by the delinquent for holding oral enquiry in order to appreciate the evidences filed in support of the charges in presence of the delinquent employee and call upon the department to prove the alleged charges. There is no denial about the fact that such exercise was not done by the enquiry officer in the present case. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner, on the basis of which, the punishment of dismissal from service was awarded, was not held in accordance with law as propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court as discussed above. There is clear violation of rules of natural justice. In view of the discussions made above writ petition is allowed. The dismissal of the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner was of the age of 49 years as mentioned in the writ petition when this writ petition was filed in the year 1995. He must have attained the age of superannuation about 9 years back. I do not find it proper case where liberty can be given for initiating fresh enquiry. I accordingly direct that the petitioner shall be paid all the retiral dues and 50 per cent salary for the period he remained dismissed from the service till the date of superannuation within 90 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. While holding so I rely upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491 and a Division Bench of this Court in Ambika Prasad Srivastava v. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others [2004 (22) LCD 770]." 16. In another judgment in Ambika Prasad Srivastava Versus State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others [2004 (22) LCD 770, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the entire proceedings are vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice and not affording opportunity to the petitioner. In that case, the petitioner was not informed about the date, time and place for holding enquiry nor was supplied the documents which were demanded by him, and the enquiry report was based simply on the reply submitted by the petitioner. 17. Admittedly, in the present case, no date time and place was fixed by the enquiry officer. The documents relied upon by the enquiry committee in support of the charges have also not been proved as no evidence was led to prove the same. 17. Admittedly, in the present case, no date time and place was fixed by the enquiry officer. The documents relied upon by the enquiry committee in support of the charges have also not been proved as no evidence was led to prove the same. The enquiry committee appointed by the disciplinary authority was also dehors the Rules of 1999. There is no provision under the Rules of 1999 to appoint an enquiry committee. The entire enquiry as well as the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated. 18. Before parting with the judgment, this court has taken notice of the fact that while passing the impugned order, the disciplinary authority has though held that the charges against the petitioner have been proved, however, instead of passing removal order has contemptuously relied on earlier enquiry report dated 22.1.2011 and the punishment order dated 13.4.2012 which was already set aside by the tribunal. The respondent No.2 has again passed the impugned order in a very casual manner and in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice as also judgment of the tribunal dated 1.7.2015. 19. At this stage, Mr. Rajiv Srivastava, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, assisted by Ms. Vasudha, Brief Holder has prayed that it is a matter of financial embezzlement and hence one more opportunity may be given to the State to conduct denovo enquiry in the matter from the stage the petitioner had submitted reply to the charge sheet. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the prayer made by learned State Counsel and submitted that the petitioner has retired from service. Presently, he is 64 years of age. The suspension order was passed in the year 2010. The tribunal has already given sufficient opportunity to the State to conduct denovo enquiry vide its judgment and order dated 1.7.2015 and remanded the matter. It is submitted that the respondent even after the opportunity having been granted by the tribunal has casually conducted the enquiry and has passed punishment order to the detriment of the petitioner. The petitioner because of callous attitude of respondent No.2 who has wilfully not conducted proper enquiry as per Rules of 1999 twice, on the second time has passed order of punishment, again in defiance of Rules of 1999. The petitioner because of callous attitude of respondent No.2 who has wilfully not conducted proper enquiry as per Rules of 1999 twice, on the second time has passed order of punishment, again in defiance of Rules of 1999. It is thus submitted that keeping in view the age of the petitioner and conduct of respondent No.2 on two occasions, the prayer for denovo enquiry is liable to be refused. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on judgment in Ambika Prasad Srivastava and Jalaluddin Ansari (supra). It is submitted that denovo enquiry was refused in those cases and against the judgment of Jalauddin Ansari(supra), the State has filed Special Appeal No.160 of 2014 decided on 28.3.2014 State of U.P. Versus Jalaluddin Ansari, only on limited ground that they may be permitted for denovo enquiry. However, the Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated 28.3.2014 has refused the State to do so because of the adequate reasons having been given by Hon'ble Single Judge regarding conduct of the enquiry officer and the fact that the petitioner of that case had retired from service. The order dated 28.3.2014 (supra) is extracted below : "This special appeal challenges the order dated 09.05.2013, passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5189 (S/S) of 1995 filed by the respondent-Jalaluddin Ansari against the order of dismissal from service. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants challenges the order impugned in this special appeal on the sole ground that the Hon'ble Single Judge while allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of dismissal from service of the respondent-Jalluddin Ansari has not given any liberty to the appellants to proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage it was found to be vitiated. Hence, the impugned order needs modification to the extent of permitting or keeping it open to the appellants to proceed with the inquiry. On perusal of the impugned order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge, it would transpire that for not granting liberty the Hon'ble Single Judge has given adequate reasons to which we express our agreement. Accordingly, no interference in this Special Appeal is warranted. It is hereby dismissed. This special appeal challenges the order dated 09.05.2013, passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5189 (S/S) of 1995 filed by the respondent-Jalaluddin Ansari against the order of dismissal from service." 21. Accordingly, no interference in this Special Appeal is warranted. It is hereby dismissed. This special appeal challenges the order dated 09.05.2013, passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5189 (S/S) of 1995 filed by the respondent-Jalaluddin Ansari against the order of dismissal from service." 21. It is next submitted that the petitioner in the present case was placed under suspension on 22.1.2010. He remained under suspension till passing of the judgment by the tribunal on 1.7.2015. He submits that in spite of direction of the tribunal to reinstate the petitioner in service, the petitioner was never reinstated and he was kept out of service and again on the second occasion, the suspension order has been passed. The petitioner is out of service since 2010. On these grounds, it is prayed that the request of the State for denovo enquiry may be refused. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled to at least 50% back wages in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and another vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010)4 SCC 491 and the judgment and order passed by this court in Ambika Prasad Srivastava vs. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others [2004 (22) LCD 770] as also in the case of Jalaluddin Ansari (supra). 22. On due consideration to the submission advanced by the parties' counsel, the judgment(s) referred to herein above and considering the fact that the petitioner is presently 64 years of age and twice the orders have been passed and second time, while passing punishment order, again the mandatory provision under Rules of 1999 have not been followed by the enquiry officer/enquiry committee as well as the disciplinary authority, therefore, the request of the State to conduct denovo enquiry from the stage of giving reply to the charge sheet is refused. 23. The petition stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 7.11.2016, passed by Director (Administration), Medical & Health Service, U.P. Lucknow and order dated 15.11.2016, passed by Chief Medical Officer, Farrukhabad are quashed. The writ petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. As observed above, it is not proper that it may be opened for the respondent to conduct denovo enquiry. The petition stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 7.11.2016, passed by Director (Administration), Medical & Health Service, U.P. Lucknow and order dated 15.11.2016, passed by Chief Medical Officer, Farrukhabad are quashed. The writ petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. As observed above, it is not proper that it may be opened for the respondent to conduct denovo enquiry. It is directed that the petitioner shall be paid all the retiral due and 50% salary for the period he remained dismissed from service till the date of his superannuation within three months of production of a copy of this order.