JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 5. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed following relief : "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.06.2024, passed by the opposite party no. 4/Additional Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned inquiry report dated 06.06.2024, submitted by the opposite party no. 5/Inquiry Officer / Deputy Director (Administration/Marketing), Rajya Krishi Utapadan Mandi Parishad, Kanpur, contained in ANNEXURE No.2 to this writ petition. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner by the opposite party no.4 vide its order dated 14.09.2023 as they were conducted contrary to provisions contained In the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the principles of natural justice. iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 15.06.2024, passed by the opposite party no.4/Additional Director, Rajya Krishi Utapadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the impugned inquiry report dated 06.06.2024, submitted by the opposite party no.5/Inquiry Officer/Deputy Director (Administration/Marketing), Rajya Krishi Utapadan Mandi Parishad, Kanpur, contained in Annexure Nos.1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition. 3. The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the impugned order dated 15.6.2024 by the disciplinary authority the relevant aspect has not been verified as to whether during the course of departmental inquiry the petitioner has been afforded the opportunity of hearing strictly in accordance with law and as to whether he has been supplied all important and relied upon documents which have been demanded by the petitioner time and again. The disciplinary authority has also not examined the relevant fact that under compelling circumstances the petitioner submitted his tentative defense reply indicating therein that he has not been provided the demanded documents but if the inquiry officer is willing to conclude the inquiry without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without supplying the demanded documents at least he should have given an opportunity of personal hearing and the opportunity to examine some witnesses whose names have been categorically indicated in para 11 of the tentative defense reply of the petitioner dated 6.6.2024 (Annexure no. 13). The disciplinary authority has also not perused the relevant document which has been enclosed as Annexure no. 2 which is the findings of the inquiry officer dated 6.6.2024 in the light of the fact that on 6.6.2024 the petitioner submitted his tentative defense reply and on the same date the inquiry officer has submitted his inquiry report before the disciplinary authority ignoring the specific and categorical demand of the petitioner to supply the documents and to provide the opportunity of hearing and opportunity to examine the witnesses. In the absence of aforesaid legal formality which is in conformity with the principles of natural justice the impugned order dated 15.6.2024 has been issued by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner saying him to appear before him for personal hearing and to submit his explanation to the inquiry report. 4. Sri Ram Raj has submitted that if the entire departmental inquiry including the findings are farce and an eye-wash and the same has been completed without following the basic tenets and requirements to conduct and conclude the departmental inquiry as to what sort of personal hearing has been given by the disciplinary authority and this fact makes it crystal clear that both the inquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority are adamant to punish the petitioner without following the due procedure of law. 5. On being confronted the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 on the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, he tried to justify the aforesaid impugned order by saying that the disciplinary authority has given opportunity of personal hearing then whatever grievance the petitioner is having may be submitted before the disciplinary authority and may submit the explanation and before taking any decision the disciplinary authority may look into this aspect. 6. 6. Learned State Counsel has stated that at this stage the matter is between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 to 5, therefore, he has no locus to say anything. 7. On being confronted the learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 5 on the point that when the petitioner has, admittedly, not been provided the demanded documents and he has not been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by the inquiry officer and he has not been given opportunity to examine the witnesses whose specific name and post has been indicated in his tentative defense reply as to how any charge can be proved against the petitioner and also as to how the disciplinary authority may take any appropriate decision finalizing the departmental inquiry, no proper explanation can be given. 8. Sri Ram Raj, in support of his aforesaid contention, has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in re: (2010) 2 SCC 772 : State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2022) 15 SCC 254 : The State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Rajit Singh, (2022) 13 SCC 329 : United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, (2022) 3 UPLBEC 1865 : State of Uttar Pradesh vs. State Public Service Tribunal and others and (2015) 2 SCC 610 : Union of India vs. P Gunasekaran, more particularly Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) whereby the Apex Court has explained the manner under which the departmental inquiry is conducted and concluded and also as to how the disciplinary authority may pass appropriate order finalizing the departmental proceedings. 9. I have perused the judgments of Apex Court and I find that the guidelines and directions, so issued by the Apex Court time and again, particularly in re: Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) has not been followed in the present case. 10. At this stage learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to. 5 has stated that if this Hon'ble Court may find it appropriate to interfere in the aforesaid impugned orders may provide an opportunity to department to pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law and for the reason that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner for which he may not left scot-free. 11. 2 to. 5 has stated that if this Hon'ble Court may find it appropriate to interfere in the aforesaid impugned orders may provide an opportunity to department to pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law and for the reason that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner for which he may not left scot-free. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that while conducting the departmental inquiry against an employee the proper opportunity of hearing should be afforded to him at particular stages. The copy of the demanded documents / the relevant / relied upon documents should be provided to him / her so that proper defense reply could be filed before the inquiry officer. After receiving the defense reply the oral inquiry is mandatory if the charges are serious and the department is of the view that if those charges are proved the incumbent may be awarded major punishment. For conducting the oral inquiry the date, time and place should be fixed. Thereafter the inquiry report should be submitted before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority should provide the copy of inquiry report to the incumbent / delinquent employee seeking explanation from him by providing an opportunity of personal hearing. After following the aforesaid procedure of law the disciplinary authority may conclude the departmental inquiry finally. 12. In the present case what I find is that the aforesaid procedure has not been followed by the inquiry officer nor by the disciplinary authority as he has not verified the fact as to whether the inquiry officer has conducted the inquiry strictly in accordance with law or not. 13. Therefore, I hereby quash the impugned order dated 15.6.2024 (Annexure no. 1), passed by the opposite party no. 4 and the inquiry report dated 6.6.2024 (Annexure no. 2) submitted by the opposite party no. 5. 14. The issue is remanded back to the inquiry officer to conduct and conclude the departmental inquiry strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to supply the copy of the demanded documents and also to provide him an opportunity to examine the witnesses whose names have been indicted in para 11 of the defense reply dated 6.6.2024. The aforesaid departmental inquiry may be conducted and concluded with expedition as the departmental inquiry may not be kept pending against the petitioner for unlimited period but it should be concluded within a reasonable time. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority may pass an appropriate order by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner seeking his explanation providing him copy of inquiry report, if any and after considering the explanation of the petitioner the disciplinary authority may pass final order concluding the departmental inquiry finally. For doing the aforesaid entire exercise no unnecessary time may be consumed by both the authorities i.e the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. 15. It is made clear that while conducting and concluding the departmental inquiry the inquiry officer may not be influenced from any observation of this Court inasmuch these observations are limited to the extent that the inquiry officer has not conducted or concluded the inquiry strictly in accordance with law, therefore, while conducting and concluding the departmental inquiry the inquiry officer shall conclude the same independently without being influenced from any observation made in this order. At the same time the disciplinary authority may pass a final order without being influenced from any observation made by this Court. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed on the aforesaid limited points. 17. No order as to costs.