JUDGMENT : 1. This judgment will decide Writ-A No.4628 of 2023 and connected Writ-A No.12441 of 2023. Writ-A No.4628 of 2023 has been heard as the leading case and facts, therefore, will be noticed from the said petition. Both the petitions have been filed by Mahendra Pal Sharma, a Technician Grade-II in the employ of the U.P. Power Corporation, who functioned for sometime as the In-charge Junior Engineer and for sometime as the Draftsman. The petitioner has risen from the ranks, being appointed a Coolie on 29.09.1978. He was promoted to the post of a Technician Grade-II vide order dated 30.05.2010 and on the same day, given the charge of Junior Engineer, 33/11 KV Electricity Sub-Station Bankapur. He discharged those duties, as he says, ably. In the month of July, 2017, the petitioner was the In-charge Junior Engineer. On 16.07.2018, he was given the charge of the Revenue In-charge by the Superintending Engineer, apart from his regular charge of Junior Engineer, managing the the 33/11 KV Sub-Station. In addition to both these responsibilities, he was also given charge of the draftsman. 2. It is the petitioner's case that on 10th October, 2018, the Executive Engineer, Jewar directed the petitioner to take care of the duties of accounts along with the Junior Engineer. The petitioner was transferred to Burhana, Saharanpur and then to the Electricity Distribution Division, Greater NOIDA. He retired from service on 30.06.2019, while posted at the Electricity Distribution Division, Greater NOIDA. He retired from the post of Technician Grade-II, which was the post substantively held by him. Post retirement, the petitioner was paid his general provident fund and dues on account of leave encashment, but no other retiral dues, including the several of his arrears and pension were paid. This happened in the manner that when the petitioner was on the verge of retirement, a charge-sheet was served upon him on 05.05.2019, carrying charges to the effect that some tubewell connection had been illegally sanctioned and an inquiry was conducted vide order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Managing Director, Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited. This was a preliminary inquiry and the Inquiry Committee by their report dated 05.11.2018 indicted the petitioner. 3. The sole basis of the charge-sheet was whatever material the Inquiry Committee entrusted with the preliminary inquiry gathered and submitted through their report of 5th November, 2018. This was a preliminary inquiry and the Inquiry Committee by their report dated 05.11.2018 indicted the petitioner. 3. The sole basis of the charge-sheet was whatever material the Inquiry Committee entrusted with the preliminary inquiry gathered and submitted through their report of 5th November, 2018. The petitioner upon service of the charge-sheet submitted his reply dated 15.05.2019 to the Inquiry Officer, who was the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Test Division-II, NOIDA, stating all relevant, true and correct facts in his defence, as the petitioner says. It was pleaded, amongst other things, that the petitioner had no concern with Village Kani Garhi and he was posted at 33/11 KV Sub-Station Bankapur. He was detailed to revenue duties, where his assignment was to issue receipts. He was the Revenue In-charge. 4. It is the petitioner's case that after his reply, the Inquiry Officer did not proceed with the inquiry until the petitioner attained his superannuation. It is also the petitioner's case that the Inquiry Officer submitted some inquiry report that he sent to the Managing Director. He did not find the petitioner guilty. The Managing Director was not inclined to accept the report and by his order dated 26.05.2020 directed the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry again and submit a fresh report. The Executive Engineer (Hydel), Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vide letter dated 19.10.2020 asked the Inquiry Officer to complete the inquiry within 15 days. The Inquiry Officer put certain questions to the petitioner and also asked him to appear for personal hearing. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and answered questions, that were put to him on 05.09.2020. No decision by the Inquiry Officer was rendered in the form of a report, but the pendency of the inquiry proceedings was prejudicing the petitioner. He was deprived of his various post retiral benefits, that were lying withheld. 5. It is for that reason that the petitioner instituted Writ-A No.10388 of 2021 before this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay his retiral benefits and pension, and further direct the respondents to take a final decision in the matter of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. This Court vide order dated 19.08.2021 disposed of the writ petition last mentioned with a direction to examine the records and ascertain if the inquiry had already been finalized. This Court vide order dated 19.08.2021 disposed of the writ petition last mentioned with a direction to examine the records and ascertain if the inquiry had already been finalized. It was further directed that it is incumbent upon the competent Authority to pass appropriate orders in the matter, so that the petitioner gets appropriate relief. The Authority concerned with the matter was directed to take all remedial measures, so that substantial justice would be ensured. The respondents were directed to complete all proceedings within two months of the date of production of a copy of the order passed in Writ-A No.10388 of 2021. A copy of this order was served upon the respondents by registered post on 23.08.2021. A reminder was sent on 01.11.2021. These evinced no response from the respondents. This compelled the petitioner to institute Contempt Application (Civil) No.5432 of 2021 against M. Devraj, Chairman, the U.P. Power Corporation Limited and the other contemnors. 6. It is in the contempt proceedings that along with a compliance affidavit, the Executive Engineer produced a copy of the impugned order dated 18.01.2022, by which the Disciplinary Authority had punished the petitioner with forfeiture of pension by 3%. After the said order was passed, retiral dues were paid to the petitioner with pension reduced by 3%. 7. Aggrieved by the forfeiture of his pension by 3%, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 07.04.2022 to the Chairman of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 09.05.2022 by the Chairman asking him to represent against a proposed enhancement of punishment by the Appellate Authority. In compliance, the petitioner submitted his representation through registered post dated 25.08.2022 with a prayer to annul the order, ordering a 3% forfeiture of his pension. The petitioner claimed parity with the matter of a similarly circumstanced employee, Anil Kumar Sharma, who was awarded the punishment of forfeiture of 1% of his pension alone. 8. The appeal was not decided by the Chairman and the petitioner again had to approach this Court instituting Writ-A No.803 of 2023, with a prayer to direct the Chairman of the Power Corporation to decide his appeal within a specified period of time. This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the Chairman of the Power Corporation to decide the petitioner's appeal within two months. This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the Chairman of the Power Corporation to decide the petitioner's appeal within two months. A certified copy of the said order was sent to the Chairman by registered post on 17.01.2023. By his order dated 23.02.2023, the Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow has passed the order impugned, by which he dismissed the petitioner's appeal and enhanced the penalty, ordering a 100% forfeiture of his pension. 9. This writ petition has been instituted assailing the orders of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal and enhancing the forfeiture of pension from 3% to 100%, as also the order of the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty and ordering a 3% forfeiture of his pension. 10. At this stage, it would be apposite to say that in consequence of the appellate order dated 23.02.2023, the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, arrayed as respondent No.4 in Writ-A No.12441 of 2023, passed an order dated 25.05.2023, directing the recovery of pension paid to the petitioner. A further order dated 23.06.2023 was passed by the Chief Treasury Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar, arrayed as respondent No.5 to Writ-A No.12441 of 2023, asking the petitioner to refund the pension paid to him. 11. Writ-A No.12441 of 2023 has been instituted by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Meerut and the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Chief Treasury Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar, directing recovery of pension already paid to the petitioner. 12. In the supplementary affidavit, that has been filed by the petitioner, it is averred that without proper and appropriate opportunity of hearing, the Inquiry Committee have submitted their report, on the basis of which the impugned orders have been passed. It is also averred in Paragraph No.6 of the supplementary affidavit that the respondents have not produced any witness on behalf of the Corporation to prove the charges detailed in the charge-sheet. It is next averred in Paragraph No.8 that the petitioner was never furnished a copy of the inquiry report and no opportunity of submitting a representation against it was given. 13. It is next averred in Paragraph No.8 that the petitioner was never furnished a copy of the inquiry report and no opportunity of submitting a representation against it was given. 13. In the counter affidavit, that has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, it is evident from a perusal of Paragraph No.7 that what the respondents call full opportunity afforded before imposition of a major penalty, was the opportunity given to the petitioner to appear before the Inquiry Committee for a personal hearing. There is a reference to letters from the Inquiry Officer dated 20.07.2020 and 26.08.2020, asking the petitioner to appear and participate in the inquiry. There is also on record proceedings before the Inquiry Officer held on 05.09.2020. It carries eleven questions that were put to the petitioner. Apparently, in this inquiry, which has led to the imposition of the most drastic penalty that one can suffer after retirement, to wit, a 100% forfeiture of his pension, no witness was examined on behalf of the establishment to prove the charges. The requirement of holding a formal inquiry before the imposition of a major penalty is salutary and this Court thinks that forfeiture of the entire pension is a major penalty of the most drastic kind. In the case of imposition of major penalty, it is imperative for the establishment to prove the charges by examining evidence, both documentary and oral before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer has to formally convene inquiry proceedings, sitting as an impartial arbiter. The establishment have to lead evidence, both documentary and oral through a Presenting Officer. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 . 14. In order to elucidate the point, it would be apposite to refer to the holding of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , where it has been observed: “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. 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 inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry 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 inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. 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.” 15. In State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB)(LB), which is a Bench decision of this Court, 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. 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 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. 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. .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. 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. 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. 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.” 16. A reading of the impugned orders and the record of the inquiry leaves no manner of doubt for a fact that the establishment never examined any witness in support of the charges or formally produced evidence, documentary or oral, before the Inquiry Officer, who was an Executive Engineer. What is more intriguing in this case is that beyond the preliminary inquiry report dated 05.11.2018, annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, a copy of the inquiry report has not appeared on record or seen light of the day. What is more intriguing in this case is that beyond the preliminary inquiry report dated 05.11.2018, annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, a copy of the inquiry report has not appeared on record or seen light of the day. This Court is, therefore, constrained to hold that the two Authorities, that is to say, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, have proceeded to punish the petitioner, either on the basis of the preliminary inquiry report or some other inquiry report, that was never furnished to the petitioner. Surprisingly, the inquiry report was never produced before this Court as well, though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. The proceedings, on the basis of which the impugned order of punishment was passed by the Authority of first instance, are surprisingly elusive about the date of the inquiry report. There is no date of the inquiry report mentioned in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. In this connection, reference may be made to the following remarks in the order of the Disciplinary Authority, where he has discussed the Inquiry Officer's report. These read: ^^tkap vf/kdkjh ba0 fnus'k vxzoky] vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk] fo|qr uxjh; ijh{k.k [k.M&f}rh;] uks,Mk }kjk Ásf"kr tkap vk[;k ds esjB fMLdkWe Lrj ij fd;s x;s ijh{k.k esa Jh egsUnz iky 'kekZ ds fo#) vf/kjksfir vkjksiksa ds lEcU/k esa ÁkIr fu"d"kksZa ds lkis{k lk{; Áekf.kr ugha ik;s tkus ds n`f"Vxr uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar ds fy, iqu% i= fnukad 26-05-2020 dks tkap vf/kdkjh ba0 fnus'k vxzoky] vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk] fo|qr uxjh; ijh{k.k [k.M&f}rh;] uks,Mk dks lUnfHkZr fd;k x;k ftl ij tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk lEcf/kr lk{; ,d= dj vius i=kad & 2626@ fo0u0ijh0 [ka0&f}0& uks,Mk fnukad 10-12-2020 }kjk iqu fu;ekuqlkj ekSf[kd lquokbZ dk volj Ánku djrs gq, tkap o foospuk dj Lkqlaxr lk{;ksa ,oa fu"d"kZ lfgr viuh tkap vk[;k miyC/k djk;hA** 17. A perusal of the order of the Disciplinary Authority, and in particular the relevant part quoted above, shows that the order of the Disciplinary Authority is conspicuous by its non-mention of the inquiry report's date. It does speak of an inquiry report, but when it was submitted, is not to be found across the length and breadth of the Disciplinary Authority's order. Likewise, there is no mention of the date of this report in the Appellate Authority's order impugned, by which he has enhanced the punishment. It does speak of an inquiry report, but when it was submitted, is not to be found across the length and breadth of the Disciplinary Authority's order. Likewise, there is no mention of the date of this report in the Appellate Authority's order impugned, by which he has enhanced the punishment. Before this Court, one would expect that a copy of the report would be produced by the respondent along with their return, but that has not been done. During the hearing, all that the respondents could show, was a copy of the preliminary inquiry report dated 05.11.2018, annexed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. One of the documents annexed to the counter affidavit, also shows that the manner in which the Inquiry Officer held inquiry, was to put questions, like interrogatories to the petitioner. Therefore, what was apparently done by the Inquiry Officer, sans training or guidance how to hold disciplinary proceedings, was to interrogate the petitioner like an Investigating Officer, rather than adjudicate the matter, requiring the establishment to prove the charges by evidence. This Court, therefore, holds that the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, are either founded on no other inquiry report, except the preliminary inquiry report or some surreptitious kind of a report that cannot qualify for valid findings of an inquiry held in disciplinary proceedings on the foot whereof a major penalty may be imposed. Since this Court proposes to quash the impugned orders with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh, if they so desire, the other issue raised by the petitioner about violation of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, is left open to be examined, should occasion arise. 18. The orders impugned in Writ-A No.12441 of 2023 are consequential to those impugned in the leading writ petition. Therefore, the orders impugned in Writ-A No.12441 of 2023 would fall as well, once the orders impugned in Writ-A No.4628 of 2023 are quashed. 19. In the result, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow and the order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow, are hereby quashed. 19. In the result, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow and the order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow, are hereby quashed. Unless the respondents elect to take fresh proceedings from the stage of the charge-sheet against the petitioner and pass orders afresh, after holding an inquiry in accordance with law and the guidance in this judgment, the petitioner shall be entitled to receive his full pension, including arrears and other post retiral benefits. If fresh proceedings are taken, the entitlement to receive pension, including arrears and other post retiral benefits, not yet paid, will abide by the result of orders to be made in those proceedings. 20. The impugned order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Chief Account Officer, Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Meerut and the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Chief Treasury Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar in Writ-A No.12441 of 2023 are also quashed. The respondents are restrained from recovering from the petitioner pursuant to the said orders, in any manner. 21. There shall be no order as to costs.