JUDGMENT : (Prakash Padia, J.) 1. The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.09.2000 passed by the respondent No.3/District Magistrate Ballia as well as order dated 30.04.2003 passed by respondent No.2/Commissioner, Azamgarh Region Azamgarh, which was communicated to the petitioner on 04.06.2003. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner while posted at the office of District Supply Officer Ballia, was suspended by the respondent No.3/ District Magistrate Ballia vide its order dated 13.01.2000 and District Supply Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer. District Supply Officer/Enquiry Officer/respondent No.5 served charge-sheet upon the petitioner on 29.04.2000 on the basis of certain paper which were never provided to the petitioner with a direction to submit reply. The petitioner submitted his reply/explanation vide letter dated 04.05.2000 denying all the charges made in the charge-sheet. 3. After submission of the reply, the petitioner was anticipating that a regular enquiry be conducted in the matter and he shall also be afforded an opportunity to cross examine the witness of prosecution and test the credibility of evidence of prosecution and also be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in his defence. But without conducting regular enquiry and without supplying documents and papers on the basis of which the petitioner was suspended, the respondent No.3 ex-parte took the allegations proved without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing and passed the order of suspension stating that the petitioner has not given any evidence along with the reply. After receipt of notice dated 11.09.2000 issued by respondent No.3 for showing cause on proposed penalty, the petitioner showed the cause vide its letter/reply dated 13.09.2000 stating therein that whatever fault have alleged to have been levelled on the petitioner were circumstantial and were caused by collectively and alleged charges levelled against the petitioner has not been done by him and the mistake committed due to over burden of work but the respondent No.3 without considering the same and without providing any opportunity of hearing, without supplying the documents and papers and relying only upon the report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent No.3 passed the order an ex-parte manner. Against the order dated 22.09.2000 passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner preferred the appeal before respondent No.2/Commissioner, Azamgarh Division Azamgarh on 02.11.2000 and the respondent No.2 rejected the appeal the appeal has no force. 4. Against the order dated 22.09.2000 passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner preferred the appeal before respondent No.2/Commissioner, Azamgarh Division Azamgarh on 02.11.2000 and the respondent No.2 rejected the appeal the appeal has no force. 4. The main ground of challenge the aforesaid orders is that the petitioner was suspended by the disciplinary authority under contemplation of disciplinary proceeding while invoking provisions contained under Rule 7 of Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 for imposing major penalty but while proceeding was under progress, the petitioner has been awarded minor punishment contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sohan Lal Vs. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and another; 2013 (6) ADJ 250 (DB) as well as the law laid down by Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashtebhuja Mishra and another; 2017(9) ADJ 373 (DB) and Kamla Charan Misra Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2008 Law Suit (All) 1016 (DB). 5. Refuting the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel rely upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.H.B.V.N.L. Vidyut Nagar, Hisar and others Vs. Yashvir Singh Gulia; 2013 (SC) 568 has submitted that if the procedure for imposing major penalty has been started and in the meantime, if the authority comes to the conclusion that it is the case of imposing minor penalty and the minor penalty is awarded, the order cannot be faulted. 6. In response to the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in case of D.H.B.V.N.L. (supra) there is a provision under the Rules to award minor penalty even in a case where the procedure for awarding major penalty is under progress, whereas there is no such provision under the Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 under which proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. 7. We have considered the argument raised by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that neither oral witnesses were examined nor date, time and place were fixed by the Enquiry Officer, therefore, in light thereof, no charges have been proved. It is stated that enquiry proceeding was initiated under the provision of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 and Rule 7 of Rule 1999 which clearly provides procedure for imposing major penalty. It is stated that enquiry proceeding was initiated under the provision of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 and Rule 7 of Rule 1999 which clearly provides procedure for imposing major penalty. For ready reference, the same may be quoted herein 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 inquire 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 form 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 charges framed 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 evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same alongwith 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 the written statement on the specified date, it will be presumed that he has none to furnish and Inquiry Officer shall proceed to complete the inquiry ex parte. (v) The charge-sheet, alongwith 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. (v) The charge-sheet, alongwith 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 charged Government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer. (vi) Where the charged Government servant appears and admits the 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 charges, the Inquiry 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 evidence, 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 witness 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 inspite 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. 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. (xi) The disciplinary authority, if it considers it 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 circumstances of the case so permits : Provided that this 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 hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or (iii) Where the Governor is 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. Basic issues before this Court is that if procedure for major penalty was initiated, is it mandatory to conduct the regular enquiry and further provided opportunity of oral evidence to the concerned employee? In this reference, it is necessary to refer certain judgments of Supreme Court as well as of this Court, in which this issue considered. 10. This Hon'ble Court in the matter of Kamla Charan Misra Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2009 (2) AWC 1259 has considered this issue. For ready reference, para 9 and 10 of this judgment are quoted herein below; "9. There is one more reason which necessitates the enquiry officer to hold a regular enquiry. In the present case, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and after receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner had submitted a reply denying the charges levelled against him. After receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 4.8.1992. There is one more reason which necessitates the enquiry officer to hold a regular enquiry. In the present case, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and after receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner had submitted a reply denying the charges levelled against him. After receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 4.8.1992. While submitting reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that the enquiry officer has not conducted the enquiry fairly. Since the respondents have proceeded ahead by adopting the procedure of major penalty and the enquiry officer has completed the enquiry and submitted a report, the defence taken by the learned standing counsel does not seem to be sustainable. Once, the disciplinary authority adopted the procedure of enquiry for major penalty and appointed an officer as enquiry officer, who held the enquiry and submitted a report, in such situation, it shall always be incumbent on the part of the enquiry officer to hold the enquiry adopting the procedure for regular enquiry. Regular enquiry means, after reply to the charge-sheet, the enquiry officer must record oral evidence with an opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter, opportunity should be given to the delinquent employee to adduce evidence in defence. The opportunity of personal hearing should also be afforded to the delinquent employee. Even if the charged employee does not cooperate with the enquiry, it shall be incumbent upon the enquiry officer to proceed ex parte by recording oral evidence vide Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of U.P. 1990 LCD 486; Avatar Singh v. State of U.P. 1998 LCD 199; Town Area Committee. Jalalabad v. Jagdish Prasad : AIR1978SC1407 ; Managing Director, U.P. Welfare Housing Corporation v. Vijay Naraln Bajpai : (1980)ILLJ222SC ; State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal : [1998]3SCR939 ; Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 117 and Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1121 . 10. Jalalabad v. Jagdish Prasad : AIR1978SC1407 ; Managing Director, U.P. Welfare Housing Corporation v. Vijay Naraln Bajpai : (1980)ILLJ222SC ; State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal : [1998]3SCR939 ; Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 117 and Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1121 . 10. In a case in State Bank of India v. T.J. Pal 1999 SCC (L&S) 922 and Union of India v. S.C. Parasar 2006 SCC (L&S) 496 : 2006 (5) AWC 5129 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that in a departmental proceeding, where the procedure for major penalty is initiated then even if disciplinary authority awards minor penalty, the enquiry should be completed by adopting the procedure prescribed for major penalty. In view of the above, the argument advanced by the learned standing counsel that the procedure prescribed for minor penalty was rightly followed does not seem to be sustainable." 11. This was also an issue before the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported (2010) 2 SCC 772 held that :- "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. 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." 12. 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." 12. Similar view was taken by Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 :- "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." 13. This Court has also taken same view in Subhas Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another reported 2000(1) UPLBEC 541 :- "In our opinion after the petitioner replied to the charge-sheet a date should have been fixed for the enquiry and the petitioner should have been intimated the date, time and place of the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should have been led in his presence and he should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him and also he should have been given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner in response to this intimation had failed to appear for the enquiry then an ex parte enquiry should have been held but the petitioner's service should have not been terminated without holding an enquiry. In the present case it appears that no regular enquiry was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet he was given a show-cause notice and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. In the present case it appears that no regular enquiry was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet he was given a show-cause notice and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. In our opinion this was not the correct legal procedure and there was violation of the rules of natural justice. Since no date for enquiry was fixed nor any enquiry held in which evidence was led in our opinion the impugned order is clearly violative of natural justice." 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenglas Tea Estate v. The workmen., AIR 1963 SC 1719 , has held that; "It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way to cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted". 15. In the case of S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 212, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that; "The Supreme Court set aside a dismissal order which was passed without giving the employee an opportunity of cross-examination. In State of U.P. v. C. S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158 , the Supreme Court held that omission to give opportunity to the officer to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. The Court also held that in the enquiry witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations, and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine these witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. In Punjab National Bank v. A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160 , (vide para 66) the Supreme Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in the presence of the charge-sheeted employee and he must be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. The same view was taken in A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 396, and in Tata Oil Mills Co. The same view was taken in A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 396, and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ. 78 (SC). 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)." 16. The above judgment was followed by a Division Bench in Subhas Chandra Sharma v. U.P.Co-operative Spinning Mills and others reported 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 the Court held thus: "In cases where a major punishment proposed to be imposed an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee request, for it or not. For this it is necessary to issue a notice to the employee concerned intimating him date, time and place of the enquiry as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541 , against which SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16-8-2000." 17. This Court has also taken the same view in the case of Rajesh Prasad Mishra v. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and others reported 2010 (1) UPLBEC 216 and has observed as under: "Now coming to the question, what is the effect of non-holding of oral inquiry, I find that, 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. & another Vs. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541 . The question as to whether non holding of oral inquiry can vitiate the entire proceeding or not has also been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in the case of Salahuddin Ansari Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541 . The question as to whether non holding of oral inquiry can vitiate the entire proceeding or not has also been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in the case of Salahuddin Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ESC 1667 and the Court has clearly held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment." 18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Narain Gupta v. State of U.P. and others reported (2011) 2 ILR 570 had also 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 exparte 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. In another case in Subhash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. reported 2012 (1) UPLBEC 166 the Division Bench of this Court after going through the different judgements 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. & another Vs. T.P.Lal Srivastava, 1997 (1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541 . A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Salahuddin Ansari Vs. 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 Vs. Managing Director & another, 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 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 Vs. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills & others, 2001 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1475 and Laturi Singh Vs U.P.Public Service Tribunal & others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 06.05.2005." 20. In case of Sohan Lal Vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and another; 2013 (6) ADJ 250 (DB), the same issue was very much before the Court and Court has considered the above issue. For ready reference, para 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of this judgment are quoted herein below; "31. In case of Sohan Lal Vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and another; 2013 (6) ADJ 250 (DB), the same issue was very much before the Court and Court has considered the above issue. For ready reference, para 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of this judgment are quoted herein below; "31. It was, however, pointed out on behalf of respondents that punishment actually awarded to petitioner is only recovery and censure/special adverse entry and both being minor punishment, the punishment order ought not be interfered on the ground that no oral inquiry is held since before imposing a minor punishment oral inquiry is not obligatory. 32. In our view the submission is thoroughly misconceived. From perusal of charge sheet it cannot be doubted that the charges, if have been proved, petitioner could have been liable to be awarded a major penalty. The competent authority also proceeded with an intention that charges, if proved, may result in major penalty and it is for this reason earlier he was suspended and then he appointed an Inquiry Officer. Appointment of Inquiry Officer for holding oral inquiry shows the intention of the disciplinary authority that the employee may suffer major penalty. In those cases where oral inquiry is necessary i.e. cases of major penalty, inquiry officer is ordinarily appointed otherwise simply by issuing a charge sheet and receiving reply, a minor penalty could have been awarded, which is not the case here. 33. The intention of disciplinary authority is further clear from the fact that petitioner was placed under suspension. Suspension is permissible only when charges are so serious so as to attract major penalty. Besides, even the show cause notice issued to petitioner proposed a major penalty. 34. We are clearly of the view that the ultimate result shall not govern the manner of preceding disciplinary proceedings inasmuch as the authorities, if found no proof of serious charges to justify major penalty, therefore, imposed minor penalty, it would not distract from the fact that proceedings were initiated for major penalty and despite denying adequate opportunity to delinquent employee, i.e., by not holding oral inquiry, he was able to show shallowness of charges which satisfy the disciplinary authority that major penalty is not warranted. If adequate opportunity would have been afforded to delinquent employee, he could have demonstrated that no penalty whatsoever is liable to be inflicted upon him, since, the charges in entirety, are baseless etc. It is the inception of proceedings which will govern the manner of disciplinary proceedings to be conducted and not the ultimate result. Therefore, mere fact that lastly only minor penalty could have been inflicted upon petitioner, would not dilute his legal right that disciplinary inquiry when initiated must have been held in conformity with procedure prescribed, attracting provisions, applicable at the inception of inquiry. 35. After careful consideration of the facts we are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated for the aforestated reasons. The impugned order dated 29.8.2000 passed by respondent no.2 herein is liable to be quashed. Accordingly it is quashed." 21. This Court in the matter of State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashtebhuja Mishra and another; 2017(9) ADJ 373 (DB) has also taken the same view. 22. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon another judgment of this Court in the case of D.H.B.V.N.L. Vidyut Nagar, Hisar and others Vs. Yashvir Singh Gulia; 213 Legal Eagle (SC) 568 and submitted that even if procedure is started for major penalty, disciplinary authority may impose minor penalty. 23. I have carefully perused the above referred judgment of Apex Court, which is distinguishable for the reason that there under the Rules it is provided that if procedure has been started for major penalty, disciplinary authority may impose minor penalty in place of major penalty. Here it is not so. 24. Therefore, in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court and followed by this Court time to time, this fact is very much clear that once the procedure is started for major penalty, the same has to be completed as provided in the Rules and if the same is left away in the mid way, enquiry proceeding shall be vitiated. 25. Once the enquiry proceeding is vitiated, no penalty either major or minor can be imposed upon the employee. This Court in the matter of Kamla Charan Misra and Sohan Lal (supra) has taken the view that once the enquiry proceeding initiated has not been completed as provided in the Rule and ultimately minor penalty may not be imposed. 25. Once the enquiry proceeding is vitiated, no penalty either major or minor can be imposed upon the employee. This Court in the matter of Kamla Charan Misra and Sohan Lal (supra) has taken the view that once the enquiry proceeding initiated has not been completed as provided in the Rule and ultimately minor penalty may not be imposed. In present case too, this fact is very much clear that enquiry proceeding was initiated after suspension of petitioner for imposing major penalty but ultimately without completing the same, minor penalty has been imposed, which is in-violation of Rule as well as law laid down by Apex Court as well as of this Court, therefore, such order can not be sustained in the eye of law. 26. In view of above, the order dated 22.09.2000 passed by the respondent No.3/District Magistrate Ballia as well as order dated 30.04.2003 passed by respondent No.2/Commissioner, Azamgarh Region Azamgarh are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 27. The respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.