JUDGMENT : 1. In this case, notice was issued on 07.01.2020, granting time to the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and to Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 8 to file counter affidavits. No counter affidavit has been filed either on behalf of the State or on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 8. This Court vide order dated 07.01.2020 has condoned the latches in filing the petition. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith. 4. Heard Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. 5. No one appears on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 8. 6. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 15.10.2005 passed by the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad dismissing the petitioner, a Safai Karmchari from service. This order has been upheld in appeal by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad vide order dated 12.03.2007. Both these orders are impugned in the present writ petition. 7. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a Safai Karmchari with the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad by the Nagar Ayukt in the year 1992. He was later on made a permanent employee. It is the petitioner's case that there was a marriage in the family and he submitted a leave application on 04.05.2005, before the Nagar Ayukt and the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, seeking ten days' leave. This application was forwarded to the Nagar Ayukt on 09.05.2005. The Nagar Swasthya Adhikari appears to have submitted a report to the Apar Nagar Ayukt, saying that the petitioner is already on medical leave, and, therefore, it is not possible to sanction ten days' leave to him. This report was communicated to the Nagar Ayukt. The petitioner was never intimated about it. The petitioner was also not intimated of the orders made on his leave application dated 04.05.2005. 8. According to the petitioner, seven months passed by, with no decision being taken on his leave application. It is the petitioner's case that on a complaint submitted by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, the Nagar Ayukt decided to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for being absent without sanction of leave. 8. According to the petitioner, seven months passed by, with no decision being taken on his leave application. It is the petitioner's case that on a complaint submitted by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, the Nagar Ayukt decided to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for being absent without sanction of leave. The decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, according to the petitioner, was taken relying on the report of the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari and without calling for an explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending inquiry vide order dated 30.06.2005. A charge-sheet dated 30.06.2005 was served upon the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted a reply dated 14.07.2005. 9. It is the petitioner's case that the Inquiry Officer did not fix any date, time or place of inquiry nor intimated the petitioner at any point of time, in any manner, about the proceedings of the inquiry. It is pleaded that in the proceedings of the inquiry, the petitioner was neither informed by the Inquiry Officer nor was he called upon to adduce oral evidence. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry and made a report dated 24.09.2005. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 30.09.2005. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice. 10. The Nagar Ayukt, thereafter, proceeded to pass the impugned order, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court vide Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20517 of 2006, but it was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy vide order dated 17.04.2006. Post dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962 before the Commissioner of the Division. The Commissioner, by an order dated 12.03.2007, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dismissing the petitioner from service. 11. Aggrieved, this petition has been instituted. 12. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, as already noticed, that the inquiry is a farce, given the fact that the charge was one which upon establishment could lead to a major penalty. It is urged that no date, time or place of inquiry was fixed. It is further urged that no witnesses on behalf of the establishment were examined to support the charges. 13. It is urged that no date, time or place of inquiry was fixed. It is further urged that no witnesses on behalf of the establishment were examined to support the charges. 13. Since, no one appears on behalf of the Nagar Nigam, there is no stand in rebuttal. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, however, says that the order is in accordance with law and has supported the same. 14. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that the charge against the petitioner is solitary. It reads as follows: ^^1- lQkbZ ,oa [kk| fujh{kd dh fVIi.kh 27&06&2005 ls Li"V gS fd vki fnuakd 05&05& 2005 ls 15 &05&2005 rd dk vodk'k izkFkZuk i= nsdj vodk'k Lohd`r u fd, tkus ds ckotwn viuh M;wVh ls fnukad 26&06&05 rd cxSj fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr jgs vkSj fnuakd 27&06&2005 dks viuh M;wVh gsrq mifLFkr gksdj lQkbZ ,oa [kk| fujh{kd ls Jh lkfnd vyh o Jh jke dqekj frokjh lQkbZ uk;d ds lkeus viuk vftZr vodk'k Lohd`r djkus ds lEca/k esa vHknzrk fd;k rFkk mUgs xkfy;kW nh ,oa tku ls ekjus ds /kedh nhA bl izdkj vki cxSj vodk'k Lohd`fr ,oa fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds vius dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr jgs ftlds dkj.k {ks= es xanxh O;kIr jgh ftlds dkj.k ukxfjdks dks lQkbZ u gksus ds dkj.k dfBukb;ksa dk lkeuk djuk iM+kA bl izdkj vkidk ;g d`R; vius drZO;ks ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh] vuq'kklughurk] LoPNan vkpj.k RkFk deZpkjh vkpj.k fu;ekoyh ds fo:) ,oa mn.Mrk dk ifjpk;d gS tks vkidh lR;fUk"Bk ij izfrdwy izHkko MkYkrk gSA^^ 15. The evidence in support of the charge cited in the charge-sheet is to the following effect: ^^1- mDr vkjksiksa dh iqf"V esa fuEufyf[kr lk{; izLrkfor gS %& 1- lQkbZ ,oa [kk| fujh{kd dh fVIi.kh fnukad 27&06&2005 dh Nk;kizfrA 2- vkidk lQkbZ ,ao [kk| fujh{kd dks fn;k x;k izkFkZuk i= fnukad 04&05&05 dh Nk;kizfrA^^ 16. A perusal of the inquiry report, where the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari was the Inquiry Officer, shows that the evidence that was considered in support of the charge is a note by the Sanitary and Food Inspector dated 27.06.2005, in fact, a photostat copy of it and the other evidence, an application dated 04.05.2005, also made by the Sanitary and Food Inspector, and again, a photostat copy of the document. 17. A perusal of the inquiry report also shows that the petitioner, in his written statement, has denied the charge. 17. A perusal of the inquiry report also shows that the petitioner, in his written statement, has denied the charge. The inquiry report further records that the petitioner was called to the office of the Inquiry Officer on 30.08.2008, in order to produce evidence in defence and have his say against the charges. It is remarked that despite opportunity being given to the petitioner and the charges explained to him, all that the petitioner said was that the Sanitary and Food Inspector and the Safai Havildar had demanded bribe in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively, but no witness or written documents in support of this charge was produced. 18. The inquiry report further records that on 29.08.2005, the concerned Sanitary Inspector, Uttam Kumar was called to testify about the incident dated 27.06.2005 and the other witness Sadik Ali, Safai Nayak was also called. It is recorded that Sadik Ali testified before the Inquiry Officer on 29.08.2005 that on 27.06.2005, at 1.20 p.m., the petitioner came to the office and abused the Sanitary and Food Inspector in vulgar language and threatened him with death. With so much said, the Inquiry Officer has returned a finding that the charge is well founded. 19. A perusal of the inquiry report does not at all show that a proper inquiry was convened, wherein date, time and place of inquiry was scheduled, with intimation to both sides. It is the requirement of law that a date, time and venue of inquiry should be fixed by the Inquiry Officer, particularly, when the inquiry is about a serious charge. The date, time and venue of inquiry is to be intimated to both parties and the others concerned. This has not been done at all. The other requirement of a valid inquiry is that oral testimony on behalf of the establishment has to be recorded in support of the charge in the first instance, with opportunity to the delinquent to cross examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the establishment. Here, something very piquant has been done, much to the prejudice of the petitioner, and, again, adopting a procedure absolutely impermissible in law. 20. On 29.08.2005, two witnesses for the establishment, which includes Sadik Ali, the star witness, were called to his office by the Inquiry Officer and their evidence, of whatever sort, was recorded behind the petitioner's back. Here, something very piquant has been done, much to the prejudice of the petitioner, and, again, adopting a procedure absolutely impermissible in law. 20. On 29.08.2005, two witnesses for the establishment, which includes Sadik Ali, the star witness, were called to his office by the Inquiry Officer and their evidence, of whatever sort, was recorded behind the petitioner's back. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Inquiry Officer on the following day i.e. 30.08.2005. Therefore, oral testimony, of whatever kind, and, in whatever manner led on behalf of the establishment, was not done in the petitioner's presence, with opportunity to him to cross examine the establishment's witnesses. This flaw goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer. Surprisingly, on the foot of such a slipshod inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority both have passed the orders impugned, dismissing the petitioner from service. 21. The position of law, that oral testimony has to be recorded on behalf of the establishment in support of the charges, with opportunity to the delinquent to cross examine the witnesses in order to constitute a valid inquiry in matters involving imposition of a major penalty, is evident from what has been expounded in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 . In Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra), it has been held by their Lordships: "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." 22. At this stage, Mr. 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." 22. At this stage, Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tipathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has pointed out that before the disciplinary authority, post conclusion of inquiry, he was given a second show cause, enclosing therewith a copy of the inquiry report and given an opportunity to appear before the Inquiry Officer at the specified time on a specific date to show cause against the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the proposed punishment. It is also pointed out that the petitioner did appear and showed cause. He was heard by the Disciplinary Authority. 23. The submission of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, therefore, is that whatever infirmity has crept in the Inquiry Officer's report, stands cured by provision of this opportunity. This Court is afraid that the submission cannot be accepted. 24. The procedure to fix a date, time and place of inquiry and the requirement for the establishment to prove its case is imperative and that has to be observed, while the Inquiry Officer is holding inquiry to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of the charges. It is a stage where evidence has to be led by parties - by one in support of the charges, and, by the other, to dispel them. It is the establishment who have to prove the charges by their evidence in the first instance, and once the establishment have done that, due opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross examine the establishment's witnesses. Thereafter, the burden to produce evidence in rebuttal lies on the delinquent's shoulders. This has not at all happened in the present case and the opportunity, of which the learned Additional chief Standing Counsel speaks in order to bail out the respondents, is an opportunity envisaged at the stage of what is popularly called the 'second show cause'. That is a stage after the inquiry and would certainly not cure the flaw that goes to the root of the matter during inquiry and vitiates the proceedings. 25. That is a stage after the inquiry and would certainly not cure the flaw that goes to the root of the matter during inquiry and vitiates the proceedings. 25. Normally, with the findings above recorded, this Court would have quashed the orders of dismissal, leaving it open to the respondents to conduct an inquiry afresh but, looking to the nature of the charge, which does appear to be trivial and the fact that a lot of time has gone by, this Court is of opinion that, that course of action is not at all warranted. Decidedly, the punishment awarded here falls into that exceptional category, which is known to law as shockingly disproportionate. 26. In the circumstances, this petition succeeds, and, is, allowed. The impugned order dated 15.08.2005 passed by the Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Allahabad and the order dated 12.03.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Divison, Allahabad are hereby quashed. 27. A mandamus is issued ordering the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service, granting him the benefit of continuity and seniority. However, in the circumstances that the petitioner presently is and considering the fact that he has not rendered, though not for his fault, any service to the respondents, he will be entitled to fifty percent back-wages. Costs easy.