JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is an Executive Engineer in the employ of the Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Meerut and functioning under the overall control of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow. The petitioner is currently posted as an Executive Engineer with the Electricity Distribution Division-IV, Ghaziabad and says that he has an excellent service record. The petitioner was appointed an Assistant Engineer on 16.06.2012 and posted as SDO (T) at Banda on 16.06.2012. He worked there upto 31.05.2017. After a posting at Panki Sub-Station from 01.06.2017 to 05.10.2017, he was promoted to the post of an Executive Engineer on 06.10.2017. Upon promotion, the petitioner was posted as the Executive Engineer, Headquarters, Meerut on 13.12.2017. The petitioner was assigned to the Meter Department as Executive Engineer (Meter) at Saharanpur Zone from 13.12.2017 to 26.01.2018. He was transferred to the Electricity Distribution Division-I, Baghpat on 26.01.2018. The petitioner held administrative powers and had to look after the financial matters there. 2. It is the petitioner's case that in the Finance Department, he had the assistance of a number of ministerial functionaries, such as the reconciliation clerk, a cashier, a head cashier, an accountant and an assistant accountant, working under the immediate control of an Assistant Engineer (Finance), who headed the Section. The petitioner, as the Executive Engineer, had overall control in financial matters. There were a number of complaints against the Assistant Accounts Officer (Revenue). Therefore, the petitioner sent a memo dated 28.03.2018 to Ishpal Singh, Assistant Accounts Officer regarding the permanent disconnection files, correction of bills and opening of the ID in fluent grade etc., the same day. The petitioner recommended the Assistant Accounts Officer's transfer to the Superintending Engineer. The Assistant Accounts Officer was transferred on the petitioner's recommendation and relieved on 28th May, 2018, while absenting. The petitioner communicated with the Competent Authority at Meerut to prepare an ID for the Assistant Accounts Officer and for other employees in the Finance Department. The petitioner has come up with a number of details in his pleadings regarding how he had controlled and dealt with the Finance Department under his administrative control, but all that may not be relevant for the decision of the matter at hand. 3. The petitioner has come up with a number of details in his pleadings regarding how he had controlled and dealt with the Finance Department under his administrative control, but all that may not be relevant for the decision of the matter at hand. 3. The case relating to the present proceedings against the petitioner arose out of the misconduct of one Suresh Babu, a Cashier (Technician Grade-II), who was not directly under the petitioner's control, but working under the Assistant Engineer (Finance). There was something suspicious about Suresh Babu's manner of functioning. The petitioner through a letter dated 23.04.2019 directed the Accountant to reconcile accounts with deposits in the Divisional Office, besides calculation of interest and apprise him in the matter. A deficit of Rs.1,44,84,108/- was found in the online billing of HCL and Fluent Grade Systems. Accordingly, a letter was written to Suresh Babu on 10.05.2019 to deposit the receipt/ challan relating to the balance in three days time. 4. The petitioner lodged a First Information Report on 15.05.2019 with the Kotwali Police Station, Baghpat against Suresh Babu. The petitioner also informed, as he says, all the Authorities concerned regarding the non-deposit of receipt-books by Suresh Babu. Suresh Babu, in the meantime, was promoted to the post of a Junior Engineer and the petitioner sent a memo dated 09.03.2019 for the closure of his computer ID, as he was relieved on 08.03.2019 to join his promotion post. Suresh Babu worked under the immediate control of the Assistant Engineer and prior to information about the deficit etc., received from the Accountant, the petitioner had no information about his misdoings. It is emphasized that so far as the provision of a ‘No Dues Certificate’ to Suresh Babu is concerned, there was nothing shown against him up to 06.03.2019, and on that basis a ‘No Dues Certificate’ was issued to Suresh Babu. However, when the embezzlement came to the petitioner's notice, prompt action was taken and a First Information Report lodged against the delinquent. He was arrested with the petitioner's efforts. 5. An inquiry team was constituted on the basis of the petitioner's report by a memo dated 15.05.2019. The report submitted by the inquiry team was one made after comparing the cashbook and discovering the embezzlement of Rs.1,44,00,000/-, all done by Suresh Babu, the Cashier-cum-Bill Clerk and otherwise a Technician Grade-II with the Electricity Distribution Division-I, Baghpat. 5. An inquiry team was constituted on the basis of the petitioner's report by a memo dated 15.05.2019. The report submitted by the inquiry team was one made after comparing the cashbook and discovering the embezzlement of Rs.1,44,00,000/-, all done by Suresh Babu, the Cashier-cum-Bill Clerk and otherwise a Technician Grade-II with the Electricity Distribution Division-I, Baghpat. By time, this report came, Suresh Babu had been promoted as a Junior Engineer, as already said, and posted to Loni, Ghaziabad. The Inquiry Committee in submitting their report, determined the total embezzlement by Suresh Babu during his tenure from 27.01.2014 to 11.03.2019, to be a sum of Rs.3,68,04,939/-. 6. The preliminary inquiry report dated 28.05.2019 was submitted to the Managing Director. Another inquiry was ordered and they found that Suresh Babu had embezzled a sum of Rs.5,09,16,482/-in all. The second inquiry report, that was submitted, was the product of a most casual exercise and it indicted the petitioner without considering that he had not the slightest role in the matter, and, in fact, was the officer, who had discovered the embezzlement by Suresh Babu and reported it. The petitioner's name was included amongst one of the employees involved in the misconduct. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 07.04.2019. 7. The first charge against the petitioner was that Suresh Babu embezzled a sum of Rs.5,09,16,000/-and odd, but the petitioner did not take any proceedings in a matter of such serious dimension during the period of his posting from 26.01.2018 to March, 2019. The formal charge, therefore, was that the petitioner did not exercise effective control over his subordinates and was negligent in the discharge of his duties. A misconduct under Rule 3 of the Government Servant Conduct Rules Rules, 1956 (for short, 'the Rules of 1956') was charged. The documents cited in support of the charge was a letter by the General Manager, Accounts and Audit, Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Meerut dated 23.05.2019, addressed to the Managing Director (together with all its annexures). The other document cited was a published copy of the Rules of 1956. 8. The second charge against the petitioner was that while posted at Baghpat from 26.01.2018 to 27.07.2019, a number of revenue cashiers during the period 2014 to March, 2019, did not return 89 revenue receipt-books, which includes Suresh Babu, who did not return 25. The other document cited was a published copy of the Rules of 1956. 8. The second charge against the petitioner was that while posted at Baghpat from 26.01.2018 to 27.07.2019, a number of revenue cashiers during the period 2014 to March, 2019, did not return 89 revenue receipt-books, which includes Suresh Babu, who did not return 25. In this fashion, Suresh Babu was not depositing cash, he received, in the coffers of the Corporation, and did so, with a long delay. The petitioner is charged with the act that during his tenure, Suresh Babu retained various receipt-books with him, which is a serious misconduct. The petitioner was charged with negligence in the discharge of his duties under the Rules of 1956. In support of the said charge, the same documentary evidence, as that in support of the first charge, was relied. 9. The third charge relates to certain failures of the system, such as the one regarding failure to generate a computer ID for the revenue cashiers, on account of which, no information about the cash collected by them, could be taken cognizance of, non-closure of the tender balance on the computer system relating to all revenue cashiers with the consequence that on account of lapses, numbering ten, Suresh Babu could embezzle funds of the Corporation. The petitioner was charged with laxity in control over his subordinates and negligence in that regard, leading to the petitioner being charged with misconduct under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1956. The two documents, that were cited in support of the first charge, were again the only evidence spoken of in the charge-sheet. 10. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet dated 23.12.2019, rebutting the charges and annexing documents. 11. The petitioner's case is that the inquiry against him was ex parte as no date, time and place was fixed and intimated to him. He was called only once on 29.01.2020 for the inquiry, but no inquiry was held. Nothing was asked of him. He was just asked to sign the Inquiry papers. It is also asserted that at the inquiry held, no witnesses were produced by the Department to prove the charges, nor the petitioner given opportunity to produce his witnesses. The inquiry was held in breach of Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2020. Nothing was asked of him. He was just asked to sign the Inquiry papers. It is also asserted that at the inquiry held, no witnesses were produced by the Department to prove the charges, nor the petitioner given opportunity to produce his witnesses. The inquiry was held in breach of Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2020. At this stage, it would be apposite to notice that in Paragraph No.35 of the writ petition, it is alleged that no date, time and place of inquiry was fixed and in Paragraph No.37, it is said that no witness was produced by the Department, which apparently means in support of the charges, regarding which the inquiry report, an undated was submitted. 12. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 04.12.2021. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 15.02.2022. The Inquiry Committee found the first charge partly proved, the second charge proved and the third charge partly proved. It was opined by the Inquiry Committee that though these charges are proved or partly proved, it would be relevant to say that the embezzlement was continuing for a period of more than five years, but it was during the petitioner's posting of one year in the Division, that it was unearthed and effective proceedings taken in that regard. 13. After submission of the petitioner's reply, by the impugned order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation, the petitioner was held partly guilty of Charges Nos.1 and 3 and entirely on the second charge, in agreement with the Inquiry Committee. The petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect, besides recovery of a sum of Rs.1,01,183/-. 14. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been instituted. 15. Heard Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. 16. 14. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been instituted. 15. Heard Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. 16. Since the petitioner has come up with a case of wholesale violation of principles of natural justice, where the Department did not fixed a date, time and place for convening the inquiry or proving the charges by examining witnesses, an imperative in a case, where a major penalty may be the result of proceedings, this petition was entertained without the petitioner being relegated to his alternative remedy of filing an appeal to the Chairman of the U.P. Power Corporation. 17. In answer to the allegation that no date, time and place, for convening the inquiry, was fixed, it is averred in Paragraph No.4(iv) of the counter affidavit that the Inquiry Committee vide letter dated 21.01.2020 had scheduled the date, time and place of inquiry, providing the petitioner personal hearing. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Committee and said whatever he had to. Annexure CA-1 and CA-2 are documents that have been relied in support of the said contention. This Court has gone through the said documents. One is a copy of the memo dated 21.01.2020, which is a notice issued to the petitioner by the officer, heading the Inquiry Committee, to appear on 29.01.2020 at 11:00 a.m. before the Inquiry Committee. The other is a record of proceedings, that the Inquiry Committee held on 29.01.2020. These read: ^^dsl la% 184&4 fnukad% 29-01-2020 i=koyh O;fDrxr lquokbZ gsrq ÁLrqr gqbZA vkjksfir vf/kdkjh Jh jktho dqekj vk;Z] rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk fo-fo-[k- ckxir vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh ds vius Ádj.k esa vkt ^tkap lfefr* ds le{k O;fDrxr #i ls mifLFkr gq,A vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dks ^tkap lfefr* }kjk viuk i{k ÁLrqr djus dk volj fn;k x;kA vkjksfir vf/kdkjh us vius fyf[kr vHkhdFku ds leFkZu esa ekSf[kd dFku ÁLrqr fd;k rFkk ;g voxr djk;k fd blds vfrfjDr mUgsa vius cpko esa dksbZ dFku@lk{; ÁLrqr ugha djuk gS rFkk fdlh lk{;@lk{kh ds ijh{k.k@ Áfrijh{k.k dh ekax ugha dh xbZA bl Ádkj O;fDrxr lquokbZ dh dk;Zokgh laiUu gqbZA g0 vifBr 29@1@2020 g0 vifBr 29@1@20 g0 vifBr 29@1@20 Jktho dqekj vk;Z vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk rRdkyhu@ckxir ¼fo-fo-[k-½ lEÁfr & fo-u-fo-[k-&prqFkZ] xkft;kckn** 18. What this Court finds, therefore, is that while the petitioner was intimated of the date, time and place, where the Inquiry Committee would hear him, but in the proceedings of the day, no evidence for the establishment was heard in the petitioner's presence. The proceedings dated 29.01.2020 show that the Inquiry Committee had either already heard the establishment's evidence behind the petitioner's back or not heard it at all. They assumed the petitioner to be guilty, taking the charge-sheet and the documents annexed, to be proof of themselves. It also shows that there was no Presenting Officer appointed by the establishment to present its case before the Inquiry Committee in order to lead evidence, both oral and documentary, in proof of the three charges. The charges were apparently accepted as true on their face by the Inquiry Committee going through idle papers on their own, as if they were the establishment's agents. The petitioner when asked to appear on 29.01.2020 was just required to explain himself and offer evidence in his defence. Even if it be assumed that some evidence was earlier heard by the Inquiry Committee, the petitioner was not there and it was all done in his absence. Therefore, what the petitioner was required to do before the Inquiry Committee was to explain his innocence, either on the basis of the presumption that the charges were true or on evidence, that was heard behind his back. This Court finds that no oral testimony was recorded before the Inquiry Committee. We have already noticed that the record of proceedings on 29.01.2020 does not show any Presenting Officer. 19. Learned Counsel for the respondents has emphasized that the petitioner was given the opportunity to produce evidence or witnesses in his defence. This Court is afraid that the said stage would arrive after the establishment had led evidence before the Inquiry Committee to prove the charges in the presence of the delinquent, that is to say, the petitioner. He could then be asked to produce his evidence. This never happened in the present case all. 20. Moreover, the imperative in all departmental proceedings, where a major penalty may be imposed is to lead oral evidence, or the production of witnesses by the establishment in support of the charges through a Presenting Officer before the Inquiry Committee/ Officer. This is regarded as a salutary procedure in order to ensure procedural fairness, broadly. 20. Moreover, the imperative in all departmental proceedings, where a major penalty may be imposed is to lead oral evidence, or the production of witnesses by the establishment in support of the charges through a Presenting Officer before the Inquiry Committee/ Officer. This is regarded as a salutary procedure in order to ensure procedural fairness, broadly. The Inquiry Committee cannot regard themselves as officers of the establishment. They have to sit as impartial arbiters, before whom the Presenting Officer leads both oral and documentary evidence in the delinquent's presence. It is after the establishment have led their evidence in support of the charges that the delinquent can be called upon to produce evidence in his defence. After all, the burden to prove the charges is on the establishment. Here, the Inquiry Committee do not seem to have sat as impartial arbiters, but as mere functionaries of the establishment, who assumed the petitioner guilty, and either heard no evidence or did so behind the petitioner's back. In either case, the inquiry proceedings would be vitiated and so also the impugned order founded on it. The imperative of producing witnesses or hearing oral evidence in support of the establishment's case, has been the subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , where it has been held : “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. 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. 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.” 21. The issue has further been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB)(LB), where it has been held: “14. Now coming to the question, what is the effect of non-holding of domestic/oral inquiry, in a case where the inquiry officer is appointed, oral inquiry is mandatory. The charges are not deemed to be proved suo motu merely on account of levelling them by means of the charge-sheet unless the same are proved by the department before the inquiry officer and only thereafter it is the turn of delinquent employee to place his defence. Holding oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty, as held by Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 .'' 15. In another case in Subhash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2012(4) ADJ 4 (NOC), the Division Bench of this Court after survey of law on this issue observed as under: ''It is well-settled that when the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner that thing has to be done in that very manner. We are of the considered opinion that any punishment awarded on the basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance with the enquiry rules meant for that very purposes is unsustainable in the eye of law. We are of the considered opinion that any punishment awarded on the basis of an enquiry not conducted in accordance with the enquiry rules meant for that very purposes is unsustainable in the eye of law. We are further of the view that the procedure prescribed under the inquiry rules for imposing major penalty is mandatory in nature and unless those procedures are followed, any out come inferred thereon will be of no avail unless the charges are so glaring and unrefutable which does not require any proof. The view taken by us find support from the judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 , as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 .'' 16. A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ESC 1667, held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which can vitiate the order of disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment has observed as under: ''10....... Non holding of oral inquiry in such a case, is a serious matter and goes to the root of the case. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541 , considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subash Chandra Sharma v. U.P.Cooperative Spinning Mills and others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 and Laturi Singh v. U.P.Public Service Tribunal and others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 6.5.2005.'' 17. Even if the employee refuses to participate in the enquiry the employer cannot straightaway dismiss him, but he must hold and ex parte enquiry where evidence must be led vide Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348 , Uma Shankar v. Registrar, 1992 (65) FLR 674 (All). 18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Narain Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 2 ILR 570, had also occasion to deal with the same issue. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348 , Uma Shankar v. Registrar, 1992 (65) FLR 674 (All). 18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Narain Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 2 ILR 570, had also occasion to deal with the same issue. It held: ''At this stage, we are to observe that in the disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent, the department is just like a plaintiff and initial burden lies on the department to prove the charges which can certainly be proved only by collecting some oral evidence or documentary evidence, in presence and notice charged employee. Even if the department is to rely its own record/document which are already available, then also the enquiry officer by looking into them and by assigning his own reason after analysis, will have to record a finding that hose documents are sufficient enough to prove the charges. In no case, approach of the Enquiry Officer that as no reply has been submitted, the charge will have to be automatically proved can be approved. This will be erroneous. It has been repeatedly said that disciplinary authority has a right to proceed against delinquent employee in ex parte manner but some evidence will have to be collected and justification to sustain the charges will have to be stated in detail. The approach of the enquiry officer of automatic prove of charges on account of non filing of reply is clearly misconceived and erroneous. This is against the principle of natural justice, fair play, fair hearing and, thus, enquiry officer has to be cautioned in this respect.'' 19. The principal of law which emanates from the above judgments are that initial burden is on the department to prove the charges. In case of procedure adopted for inflicting major penalty, the department must prove the charges by oral evidence also. 20. From perusal of enquiry report it is demonstrably proved that no oral evidence has been led by the department. When a major punishment is proposed to be passed the department has to prove the charges against the delinquent/employee by examining the witnesses and by documentary evidence. In the present case no witness was examined by the department neither any officer has been examined to prove the documents on the basis of which charges are levelled on the claimant in the proceedings. 21. In the present case no witness was examined by the department neither any officer has been examined to prove the documents on the basis of which charges are levelled on the claimant in the proceedings. 21. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 22. Even if, an employee prefers not to participate in enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary.” 22. The question was also considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB), where it was held: “15. The law in this regard is very well-settled and does not need a reiteration, however, we may refer to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , wherein it has clearly been held that Enquiry Officer acts as a quasi judicial authority and his position is that of an independent adjudicator and further that he cannot act as a representative of the department or disciplinary authority and further that he cannot act as a prosecutor neither he should act as a judge; his function is to examine the evidence presented by the department and even in the absence of the delinquent officer, has to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to bring home the charges. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in the said judgment of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) that it is only in case when the Government servant, despite notice, fails to appear during the course of enquiry that Enquiry Officer can proceed ex parte and even in such circumstances it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to record the statement of witness. 17. 17. In the instant case, no oral enquiry was held, neither the petitioner was given any notice to participate in any oral enquiry by fixing date, time and place for oral enquiry. It is only that the Enquiry Officer after noticing that despite sufficient time having been given to the petitioner, she did not furnish her reply to the charge-sheet, he proceeded to submit ex parte report without conducting any oral enquiry by fixing date, time and place for such an oral enquiry. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer, in this case, has violated the aforesaid principles, which clearly vitiates the enquiry proceedings and any punishment order based on such a vitiated enquiry, is clearly not sustainable.” 23. A Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB)(LB), after a copious review of authority on the point, held: “14. Recently the entire law on the subject has been reviewed and reiterated in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510 and Court has culled out certain principles as under: ''(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any.'' 15. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any.'' 15. The principal of law emanates from the above judgments is that initial burden is on the department to prove the charges. In case where inquiry is initiated with a view to inflict major penalty, department must prove charges by adducing evidence by holding oral inquiry. 17. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Even if, an employee prefers not to participate in enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary.” 24. Upon a reading of the inquiry report in this case, this Court finds the charge against the petitioner is of laxity in control over his subordinates, or negligence as the Department have chosen to call it. Looking to the nature of the charges and the fact that there was a total denial of the charges by the petitioner with a case that he in fact unearthed the fraud, the establishment had to prove their charges by leading both documentary and oral evidence. More than that, the Inquiry Committee, as already remarked, did not conduct themselves as impartial arbiters and seem to have proceeded on an assumption of guilt. They summoned the petitioner on 29.01.2020 to appear before them virtually to explain himself. That is not how an inquiry into charges, serious in nature and likely to lead to the imposition of a major penalty, is held. These facts and the manner in which the inquiry has been held, leads this Court to the irresistible conclusion that the inquiry proceedings are vitiated on account of a serious procedural lapse prejudicing the petitioner. 25. That is not how an inquiry into charges, serious in nature and likely to lead to the imposition of a major penalty, is held. These facts and the manner in which the inquiry has been held, leads this Court to the irresistible conclusion that the inquiry proceedings are vitiated on account of a serious procedural lapse prejudicing the petitioner. 25. In the considered opinion of this Court, therefore, this is a case, where the impugned order deserves to be quashed with liberty to the respondents, if they so chose, to proceed afresh against the petitioner from the stage of the charge-sheet, holding inquiry de novo in accordance with law. 26. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow is hereby quashed. The respondents shall be at liberty, if they so elect, to proceed afresh with the inquiry in accordance with law, from the stage of issue of the charge-sheet, bearing in mind the guidance in this judgment. 27. There shall be no order as to costs.