JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. 2. The petitioner before this Court while working as Executive Engineer came to be suspended on 5.10.2019 setting into motion a regular disciplinary enquiry. It transpires from the record that some preliminary fact finding enquiry report was submitted by a three member committee constituted in that regard on 3rd April, 2020 and as a consequence thereof, a regular chargesheet was issued on 26.10.2020 to the petitioner which as many as three articles of charges to which petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 31.12.2020 denying all the charges. 3. It further transpires that thereafter an oral enquiry was held as per chargesheet itself petitioner was issued with notice by the enquiry officer to appear before the enquiry committee and get himself examined. In response to the same petitioner did appear before the Enquiry Committee on 15.2.2021 and an oral statement was recorded, which has come to be so noted on the order sheet of the enquiry proceeding as has come to be annexed alongwith counter affidavit as Annexure CA-1. It has come further to be noted therein that petitioner did not ask for any other witness to be examined, nor did he file any other document in addition to what he had already submitted alongwith reply. It is thereafter that oral enquiry was stated to have been concluded and the final enquiry came to be submitted indicting the petitioner of the charges levelled in the chargehseet. Soon after the report was submitted bringing home the charge by enquiry committee on 15.2.2021, petitioner was issued with a show cause notice to which he submitted reply and finally his reply having not been found satisfactory, he was awarded with maximum punishment of dismissal from service. Upon appeal being preferred against the said order, it met the same fate as his explanation offered to the show cause notice not found satisfactory and hence this petition. 4. Upon appeal being preferred against the said order, it met the same fate as his explanation offered to the show cause notice not found satisfactory and hence this petition. 4. Twin arguments advanced by learned counsel for Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner: a. The chargesheet issued to the petitioner was approved only by Managing Director and Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation being appointing authority and the disciplinary authority, the chargesheet ought to have been issued only after approval of the Chairman under the relevant regulation. In the circumstances, therefore, once the chargesheet was not approved by the competent authority, the entire enquiry pursuant thereto was taken to be without lawful authority and resultantly the order of dismissal from service was also to be held bad; and b. Except for the oral examination of the petitioner, no oral enquiry was held, inasmuch, no departmental witness was examined and enquiry officer instead of getting preliminary enquiry report proved before him proceeded to rely upon the same and the statement made before the committee that had held preliminary enquiry report brought home the charge which was against procedure prescribed for holding major enquiry. 5. Learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the relevant regulations as contained in 2021 Regulation. 6. Meeting the arguments advanced by learned Senior Advocate Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Board of Directors of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. had adopted a resolution as back as on 28th April, 2010, by which Managing Director have been conferred with power of the disciplinary authority in all matters of disciplinary proceeding and imposition of various penalties except penalty of dismissal, which power continues to be vested with Chairman of Corporation. He has brought on record the consequential letter issued pursuant to resolution brought by the Board of Director dated 28th April, 2010. He, therefore, argues that since at the time of issuance of chargehseet, it could not have been perceived as to whether petitioner was to be awarded with major penalty in the nature of dismissal from service as it was to depend upon the outcome of the enquiry report, therefore, Managing Director was the competent authority in the matter to approve the chargesheet to set into motion a regular disciplinary enquiry. 7. 7. In so far as second argument advanced by learned Senior Advocate is concerned, Sri Srivastava has submitted that from the perusal of the enquiry report, it does appear that petitioner demanded and yet no departmental witness was examined. He, however, submits before the Court that these pleas were not taken either in reply to the show cause notice, nor even at the stage of enqiury when it was being conducted, nor at the stage of appeal and so this may not be open for the petitioner to raise two issues here before the Court first time under Article 226 of the Constitution. He has also submitted that in the matter of disciplinary enquiry, this Court will be rarely interfering in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction of under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. Meeting the argument, in rejoinder affidavit, Mr. Khare has placed the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Pramod Kumar, IPS and Another (2018) 17 SCC 677 , in which Supreme Court held that if there is inherent flaw in framing of the chargesheet then it goes to the root of the matter of disciplinary proceeding being de hors the beyond procedure and so cannot result in valid imposition of penalty. It is further submitted that it is well settled legal proposition that when rules require a thing to be done in a particular manner then it should be done in that manner alone M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Jamnagar (2015) 11 SCC 628 and 2022 8 SCC 713 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that first argument advanced by Mr. Khare regarding incompetent chargesheet deserves to be rejected. Under the relevant rules cited before me the authority to impose punishment of dismissal/removal from service has only been vested with Chairman and so at the stage of issuance of charge sheet a punishment could not have been proved. However, if authority chooses to impose punishment of dismissal after enquiry, it is at that stage show cause notice should be issued only by the Chairman. 10. However, if authority chooses to impose punishment of dismissal after enquiry, it is at that stage show cause notice should be issued only by the Chairman. 10. Now coming to the merit of the case regarding disciplinary proceedings and action, I find from the perusal of the chargesheet that in the chargesheet, the basic document that have been relied upon are committees’ report and statements of certain consumers and other persons recorded before the committee specially constituted that had held preliminary enquiry. These documents have been relied upon including besides the bank deposits, payslip in support of first charge. From the perusal of the enquiry report, I find that after referring to the article of charges, specially charge no. 1, the enquiry committee proceeded to refer and record the oral statement made by the petitioner and thereafter it has proceeded to examine charge no. 1 on merits and has relied upon not only preliminary enquiry report, but also statement of certain outsiders and the consumers that were recorded before the preliminary conducting committee. Thus, it is clear that while holding regular enquiry committee failed to record statement of witnesses whose statement was recorded before the preliminary enquiry conducting committee so as to ensure that those statements are proved in departmental enquiry committee. Those persons were not at all summoned by enquiry officer to test the veracity of the findings returned by the preliminary enquiry report. 11. In the considered view of the Court any document that is relied upon for arriving at finding of fact must be strictly proved. The legal proposition is very sound to the effect about a document which is required to be proved, is to to be proved either by who had answered it or by the person who is witness while the document was being prepared or getting examined the person in whose presence the document was executed or if examine the person who may said to be authorized persons to have custody of the document. Any of the procedures, if not followed in getting a particular document proved or even preliminary enquiry report is also not proved and that is relied upon then in my considered view finding of fact based upon such report cannot be relied upon so as to bring home the charge. Any of the procedures, if not followed in getting a particular document proved or even preliminary enquiry report is also not proved and that is relied upon then in my considered view finding of fact based upon such report cannot be relied upon so as to bring home the charge. I, therefore, find there to be basic flaw in the entire enquiry committee report even in respect of charge nos. 2 and 3. Thus findings returned by the enquiry committee could not have been reckoned with by the disciplinary authority while relied upon the same. 12. In the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010)2 SCC 772 , the Supreme Court has very categorically held that oral enquiry is sine qua non in the matters of disciplinary enquiry when conducted for awarding major penalty. Vide paragraph 22, the Court has held thus: “34. This Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita v. Unionof India, (1986) 3 SCC page 229, had clearly stated the rationale for the rule requiring supply of copies of the documents, sought to be relied upon by the authorities to prove the charges levelled against a Government servant. In that case the enquiry proceedings had been challenged on the ground that non supply of the statements of the witnesses and copies of the documents had resulted in the breach of rules of natural justice. The appellant therein had requested for supply of the copies of the documents as well as the statements of the witnesses at a preliminary enquiry. The request made by the appellant was in terms turned down by the disciplinary authority. 35. In considering the importance of access to documents in statements of witnesses to meet the charges in an effective manner this Court observed as follows: "When a government servant is facing a disciplinary proceeding, he is entitled to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an effective manner. And no one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies, how can the concerned employee prepare his defence, cross-examine the witnesses, and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible? In the absence of such copies, how can the concerned employee prepare his defence, cross-examine the witnesses, and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible? It is difficult to comprehend why the disciplinary authority assumed an intransigent posture and refused to furnish the copies notwithstanding the specific request made by the appellant in this behalf. Perhaps the disciplinary authority made it a prestige issue. If only the disciplinary authority had asked itself the question: "What is the harm in making available the material?" and weighed the pros and cons, the disciplinary authority could not reasonably have adopted such a rigid and adamant attitude. On the one hand there was the risk of the time and effort invested in the departmental enquiry being wasted if the courts came to the conclusion that failure to supply these materials would be tantamount to denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. On the other hand by making available the copies of the documents and statements the disciplinary authority was not running any risk. There was nothing confidential or privileged in it.” 36. On an examination of the facts in that case, the submission on the behalf of the authority that no prejudice had been caused to the appellant, was rejected, with the following observations: "Be that as it may, even without going into minute details it is evident that the appellant was entitled to have an access to the documents and statements throughout the course of the inquiry. He would have needed these documents and statements in order to cross-examine the 38 witnesses who were produced at the inquiry to establish the charges against him. So also at the time of arguments, he would have needed the copies of the documents. So also he would have needed the copies of the documents to enable him to effectively cross-examine the witnesses with reference to the contents of the documents. It is obvious that he could not have done so if copies had not been made available to him. Taking an overall view of the matter we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant has been denied a reasonable opportunity of exonerating himself." 13. It is obvious that he could not have done so if copies had not been made available to him. Taking an overall view of the matter we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant has been denied a reasonable opportunity of exonerating himself." 13. A division bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Narain Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2011 (2) ILR 570 had dealt with this aspect to the fact held thus: “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.” 14. Very recently in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Kishori Lal and Another, 2018 (9) 397 (DB) (LB) the Court has held that oral enquiry to be mandatory. Vide paragraph 14, the Court had held thus: “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. Vide paragraph 14, the Court had held thus: “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 Uttar Pradesh 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. The court have followed recently the judgment of coordinate bench in the case of Suresh Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others being Writ A No. 12991 of 2023 decided on 19.10.2023. 16. Further in the case of M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Jamnagar (2015) 11 SCC 628 , Supreme Court has held that “if the law requires that something be done in a particular manner, it must be done that manner, and if not done in that manner has no existence in the eye of the law at all. The Customs Authorities are not absolved from following the law depending upon the acts of a particular assessee. Something that is illegal cannot convert itself into something legal by the act of a third person.” 17. In view of above, therefore, the order of punishment which is maximum penalty in the nature of dismissal cannot be sustained in law and the same deserves to be set aside and so also the order of appeal affirming the same also deserves to be set aside. 18. At this stage, Mr. Srivastava, has tried to argue that since petitioner has been dismissed from service he should not be directed to be reinstated, in this connection he has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P and Others v. Rajit Singh, 2022 (4) ADJ 295 . He has heavily relied upon paragraph 8 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereunder: 8. He has heavily relied upon paragraph 8 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereunder: 8. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal also observed that the enquiry proceedings were against the principles of natural justice in as much as the documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As per the settled proposition of law, in a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of principles of natural justice is noticed and the enquiry has to be proceeded further after furnishing the necessary documents mentioned in the charge sheet, which are alleged to have not been given to the delinquent officer in the instant case. In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 , which was also pressed into service on behalf of the appellants before the High Court, it is observed in paragraph 16 as under:- “16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar [ (1993) 4 SCC 727 ], Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls [ (2002) 10 SCC 293 ], Uttar Pradesh State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey [ (2005) 8 SCC 264 ] and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [ (2008) 12 SCC 30 ]). 19. In the case of Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad etc. v. B. Karunakar etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074 , a constitution bench judgment, it has been categorically held while court of law or Tribunal proceeds to quash the order of punishment then it should remand matter to be tried again from that stage where flaw has occurred and employees states as was then be retired. v. B. Karunakar etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074 , a constitution bench judgment, it has been categorically held while court of law or Tribunal proceeds to quash the order of punishment then it should remand matter to be tried again from that stage where flaw has occurred and employees states as was then be retired. The Court has observed “Where after following the above procedure the Courts/Tribunals sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority, management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report.” Since here is a case where I find that departmental enquiry was not properly held in the matter, therefore, matter deserves to be remitted to the stage of holding enquiry afresh on the basis of charge sheet issued to the petitioner and reply already submitted by petitioner. 20. It is also not disputed that suspension of petitioner was revoked on 4.11.2020 and petitioner was working at the time when impugned order was passed. 21. Accordingly, while I quash the orders dated 09.06.2021 passed by Chairman Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow and order dated 21.10.2021 issued by the Board of Director of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. with consequential benefits to the petitioner, I hereby provide that department shall be holding enquiry afresh by appointing fresh enquiry committee giving full information in that regard to the petitioner and concluding the enquiry by holding full fledged oral enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed within a maximum period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and bring the disciplinary proceeding itself shall be concluded within further period of two months. Petitioner shall be entitled to current salary only and arrears of salary shall depend upon the outcome of the result of the writ petition. Since petitioner was already reinstated while enquiry was gong on by revoking suspension order, the authority may not suspend him again in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 22. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands allowed.