JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri D.K. Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.9.2004 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition with further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release all post retiral benefits to the petitioner, admissible to him as per law. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1969 as Accountant in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank'), joined the said post and continued to work on the post and thereafter, from time to time he was transferred at various places. In the year 1973, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Field Officer. Since 1973, the petitioner is continuously working on the post of Field Officer and at the relevant time the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while working on the post of Officiating Manager in the aforesaid Bank at Jhinjhak Branch. The petitioner worked in the said Branch as officiating Manager from June, 2003 to January, 2004. While working at Jhinjhak Branch, it is said that certain irregularities were deducted against the petitioner on which the petitioner had been placed under suspension inter alia on frivolous charges vide order dated 14.5.2004. After passing of the suspension order, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 25.6.2004 which was received by the petitioner on 9.7.2004. The charge-sheet contained six charges. With every charges certain amount of evidence in the form of documentary evidence was also mentioned in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet inter-alia stated six charges with respect to various irregularities being committed by the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to give reply to the said charge-sheet latest by 10.7.2004 although the petitioner received the charge sheet on 9.7.2004. The petitioner by means of letter dated 12.7.2004 demanded time from the respondents for inspecting the documents which were relevant and genuinely needed for submitting an effective reply in order to establish his innocence. The petitioner was asked to give reply to the said charge-sheet latest by 10.7.2004 although the petitioner received the charge sheet on 9.7.2004. The petitioner by means of letter dated 12.7.2004 demanded time from the respondents for inspecting the documents which were relevant and genuinely needed for submitting an effective reply in order to establish his innocence. The documents of various nature were voluminous also and the petitioner also wanted to see various objections raised by the Jhinjhak Branch for justification of alleged charges and to what extent the petitioner was liable and reasonable in the matter. By means of letter dated 14.7.2004, the petitioner was informed that he was being supplied Annexures 2,3 and 4 of the preliminary report of the Regional Manager and in addition thereto the petitioner was asked to inspect the documents at Jhinjhak Branch and to obtain the certified copies of the required documents and after doing all this exercise the petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the chargesheet latest by 25.7.2004. Although the time was granted to the petitioner to inspect the documents by means of letter dated 14.7.2004 and the said permission was granted in pursuance of the letter of the petitioner dated 12.7.2004 and knowingfully well that the documents are to be supplied to the petitioner and that the petitioner has also not filed reply to the charge sheet uptil now and had demanded time for missing documents alongwith the charge sheet, the Bank proceeded to fix the date for personal hearing and for cross examination by the petitioner by means of letter dated 13.7.204. In the said letter the date for personal hearing and examination and cross examination was fixed as 28.7.2004 but this letter dated 13.7.2004 was never conveyed to the petitioner at any point of time and false averment has been made in the dismissal order to the said effect that the said letter was shown to the petitioner on 14.7.2004 and that he refused to receive the same. The above averment has been made in the dismissal order only with a view to fill in the lacuna in the enquiry proceedings with oral averment, although the letter dated 13.7.2004 was never shown to the petitioner. The letter dated 13th July, 2004 was conveyed to the petitioner by means of registered letter dated 4.8.2004 and the said letter was dispatched by the Regional Office. The letter dated 13th July, 2004 was conveyed to the petitioner by means of registered letter dated 4.8.2004 and the said letter was dispatched by the Regional Office. The letter dated 13th July, 2004 was received by the petitioner through registered post on 9th August, 2004. On 14.7.2004, the petitioner has been supplied certain documents and in addition thereto he was asked to inspect the documents at Jhinjhak Branch to obtain certified copies of the documents asked for submitting reply by the petitioner. On 28.7.2004, the respondents fixed the date for personal hearing and cross examination through the aforesaid letter dated 13.7.2004, but the said letter has never been conveyed to the petitioner at any point of time and false averment has been made in the dismissal order that the said letter was shown to the petitioner on 14.7.2004 but he refused to receive the same and the petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet which was received by the office of the respondents on 2nd August, 2004. The letter dated 13.7.2004 was conveyed to the petitioner by means of registered letter dated 4.8.2004 which was dispatched by the Regional office and received by the petitioner on 9th August, 2004. The petitioner by means of the letter dated 22.7.2004 asked from the respondents the time upto 10.8.2004 for submitting reply to the charge-sheet and for personal hearing as well as to cross examine the witnesses said to have been replied upon by the respondents. The petitioner waited for opportunity of personal hearing but the respondents without fixing any date, time and place for enquiry proceeded exparte and concluded the entire enquiry knowingfully well that the petitioner is to retire on 30th September, 2004. On 20.9.2004, the petitioner received a show cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report and the proposed punishment of dismissal from service which was received by the petitioner on 25th September, 2004 giving time to the petitioner to submit his reply to the said show cause notice upto 28th September, 2004. On 20.9.2004, the petitioner received a show cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report and the proposed punishment of dismissal from service which was received by the petitioner on 25th September, 2004 giving time to the petitioner to submit his reply to the said show cause notice upto 28th September, 2004. The petitioner any how submitted reply to the show cause notice by 28.9.2004 denying all the allegations made against him inter alia stating that the petitioner was not given reasonable and proper opportunity nor the enquiry has been conducted in its true sense even he was not permitted to cross examine the witnesses said to have been relied upon by the respondents, thus the entire proceedings vitiated for non-observance of the principles of natural justice. The respondent vide impugned order dated 29.9.2004 proceeded to dismiss the petitioner only a day before his retirement without considering the reply given by the petitioner in which to the charge sheet, with a view to satisfy their whims and capricious in a most illegal and arbitrary and also without application of mind as the dismissal order itself indicated that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause, whereas the said reply has been filed by the petitioner in the Camp Office of the Managing Director, on 28.9.2004 in a routine and mechanical manner, thus the impugned order against the petitioner suffers from the vice malice and nonobservance of the principle of natural justice, as such the same is not tenable in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed. The petitioner has been retired from service and because of the dismissal from service vide impugned order dated 29th September, 2004, the petitioner has not paid his post retiral dues admissible to him under law and the petitioner is suffering without there any fault on his part as none of the charges levelled against the petitioner are of such nature which causes any loss to the Bank in question. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not fixed any date, time or place for holding enquiry and nor any date for personal hearing was fixed as demanded by the petitioner in the reply to the charge sheet itself, thus the entire enquiry initiated against the petitioner is vitiated and is no enquiry in the eye of law, as such the same deserves to be ignored and rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the enquiry officer, suo mottu, prepared the enquiry report without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and without giving him any opportunity to prove his innocence by means of various documents as also to cross examine the witnesses which were sought to be relied upon in support of the charges, thus the enquiry is vitiated and is a nullity in the eye of law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that in spite of submission of reply to show cause notice, in the dismissal order a specific finding has been recorded to the effect that the petitioner has not submitted reply to the show cause and the dismissal order has been passed on 29th September, 2004 whereas the petitioner has submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 28th September, 2004, thus the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and without giving any weightage to the reply to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner received show cause notice of proposed dismissal only on 25th September, 2004 from the Region Office and he submitted reply to the show cause notice in the Camp Office of the Managing Director on 28th September, 2004 but the same has not been considered at all while passing the impugned order, thus the impugned order is illegal, invalid and has been passed without application of mind. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the Disciplinary Authority in a hurried manner and rather in a mechanical manner and without considering the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice as well as the charge-sheet proceeded to dismiss the petitioner agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer with regard to the five charges and with respect to one charge the petitioner was not found guilty or responsible with a view to satisfy his whims to punish the petitioner any how before a day of his retirement i.e. 29.9.2004. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that all the charges which have been levelled against the petitioner are in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and it has been stated in the charge-sheet as well as in the dismissal order of that the petitioner has not supervised and performed his duties well as required under the Rules. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the dismissal order has been passed in hurried manner and the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice has not been considered and denied to have been received by the respondents is a sheer violation of the principle of natural justice and also established the malice of the authority concerned. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the enquiry held in the case of the petitioner is no enquiry in the eye of law and is a nullity and a sham enquiry and is liable to be ignored and rejected in the interest of justice. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted there has been total non-application of mind and without observing the principle of natural justice the impugned order has been passed in a most illegal, arbitrary and malafide manner which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 13. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the inquiry officer directed to the petitioner to present himself on 28.7.2004 at 11.00a.m. in the Headquarter of the U.P. Sahakari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd, Lukcnow for personal hearing as well as for examination/ cross examination of the evidences. The inquiry officer provided him the said letter on 14.7.2004 at Headquarter of the Bank and after reading the same, the petitioner refused to receive the same. The inquiry officer provided him the said letter on 14.7.2004 at Headquarter of the Bank and after reading the same, the petitioner refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the inquiry officer sent the said letter dated 13.7.2004 at the relevant place where the petitioner was attached. He received the letter but on 28.7.2004 he had not appeared before the inquiry officer concerned. 14. Learned Standing Counsel next submitted that the petitioner has been provided due opportunity of hearing to place his facts before the competent authority, but intentionally he failed to choose to submit the reply at the relevant time after having proper notice, as well as choose not to appear, and at the later stage he cannot be permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of hearing. 15. Learned Standing Counsel next submitted that all the proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated under the provisions of law and there has been no question of any biaseness against him. 16. Learned Standing Counsel next submitted that the principles of natural justice cannot be put into a straitjacket formula. Its application will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is also well settled that if a party having proper notice choose not to appear, he at a later stage cannot be permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of hearing. 17. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. Perusal of the material reveals that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1969 as Accountant in the Bank and joined the said post. In the year 1973 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Field Officer. The petitioner worked in the said Branch as officiating Manager from June, 2003 to January, 2004. During the said period, certain allegations had been levelled against the petitioner on which the petitioner had been placed under suspension. Thereafter, a charge sheet mentioning six charges was issued on 25.6.2004 and received by the petitioner on 9.7.2004 wherein the petitioner was directed to file reply to the said charge sheet latest by 10.7.2004. 19. It is also evident that the petitioner demanded time for inspecting the documents. Thereafter, a charge sheet mentioning six charges was issued on 25.6.2004 and received by the petitioner on 9.7.2004 wherein the petitioner was directed to file reply to the said charge sheet latest by 10.7.2004. 19. It is also evident that the petitioner demanded time for inspecting the documents. Vide letter dated 14.7.2004 the petitioner was informed that he was being supplied Annexures 2, 3 and 4 of the preliminary report of the Regional Manager. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the charge-sheet latest by 25.7.2004. The Bank proceeded to fix 28.7.2004 as the date for personal hearing and for cross examination by the petitioner by means of letter dated 13.7.2004. The letter dated 13th July, 2004 was conveyed to the petitioner by means of registered letter dated 4.8.2004 and the said letter was dispatched by the Regional Office. The said letter was received by the petitioner through registered post on 9th August, 2004. The petitioner by means of the letter dated 22.7.2004 asked from the respondents the time upto 10.8.2004 for submitting reply to the chargesheet and for personal hearing as well as cross examine the witness. On 20.9.2004 the petitioner received show cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report and the proposed punishment of dismissal from service which was received by the petitioner on 25th September, 2004 giving time to the petitioner to submit his reply to the said show cause notice upto 28th September, 2004. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice by 28.9.2004 denying all the allegations made against him inter alia stating that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing. Vide order dated 29.9.2004 the respondent proceeded to dismiss the petitioner. 20. It is well settled that the disciplinary proceedings breaks into two stages. The first stage commences when the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusion on the basis of evidence, the enquiry officer’s report and the delinquent employee relied to it. The second stage begins when the disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusion. 20. It is well settled that the disciplinary proceedings breaks into two stages. The first stage commences when the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusion on the basis of evidence, the enquiry officer’s report and the delinquent employee relied to it. The second stage begins when the disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusion. It is also well settled that an order passed by an authority should be a reasonable one and the objection taken by a person should be dealt with because reasons are like a live wire which connects the mind of the decision making authority and the decision given by him and if this wire/ link is broken i.e. to say no reasons are given in the impugned order then it will not be possible to know as what was going in the mind of the decision making authority on the basis of which he has come to the conclusion and passed the impugned order. 21. But in the present case, letter of the respondent dated 13.7.2004 regarding fixing of a date as 28.7.2004 for personal hearing and for cross examination by the petitioner, was not conveyed to the petitioner prior to the date fixed i.e. 28.7.2004 and it was conveyed only on 9.8.2004 through registered letter dated 4.8.20224 much after date fixed for personal hearing and for cross examination. Thereafter, the enquiry officer prepared the enquiry report without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and without giving him any opportunity to prove his innocence by means of various documents as also to cross examine the witnesses which were sought to be relied upon in support of the charges. Even the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent before passing the impugned order. Perusal of the record produced before this Court on 30.10.2022 establishes that no documentary evidence is available in regard to service of notice dated 13.7.2004 to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, there is utter disregard of principles of natural justice in the matter and the impugned order passed by the respondent is bad in law and is in violation of principles of natural justice. 22. In this view of the matter, there is utter disregard of principles of natural justice in the matter and the impugned order passed by the respondent is bad in law and is in violation of principles of natural justice. 22. The rules of natural justice require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice. 23. It is admitted position that the petitioner retired from service on 29.7.2004 and therefore, there is no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after his retirement nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from the retiral benefits. 24. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that after retirement of an employee, no disciplinary proceeding can be continued, the order dated 29.9.2004 is quashed. The respondents are directed to release all post retiral benefits to the petitioner admissible to him as per law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 25. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.