JUDGMENT : J.J. Munir, J. 1. Parties have exchanged affidavits. 2. The writ petition is taken up for hearing forthwith. 3. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow (for short, 'the Corporation') dated 05.03.2024, dismissing the petitioner from service after holding disciplinary proceedings. 4. The petitioner was appointed a Junior Engineer with the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation after selection by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Service Commission. He was appointed as such and placed on probation on 28.04.2014. The petitioner was initially posted at Banda. Upon completion of the period of probation, the petitioner was confirmed in service. It is the petitioner's case that by an office order dated 28.04.2015, he was given additional charge of two Substations, apart from two other Substations, that were already under his charge. This happened on account of promotion of one Arvind Kumar Gautam to the position of an Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was, therefore, holding charge of four Substations, located in a radius of 40 kilometers. This caused the petitioner great hardship and strain in the performance of his duties. 5. One Kuldeep Singh, the son of a consumer and Smt. Sudha Singh wife of Balram Singh, moved an application dated 15.09.2015, requesting for the replacement of the 16 KVA transformer by a 25 KVA one. This change was sought because of malfunctioning of the installed transformer of 16 KVA, which could not bear the necessary electricity load. The application last mentioned was received in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Banda on 15.09.2015. After completion of necessary formalities, it was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned for necessary action on 22.09.2015. On the following day i.e. 23.09.2015, a letter dated 15.09.2015 was received in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The next event fell on 26.09.2015, when the application was forwarded to the petitioner, who was the Junior Engineer, posted at the substation concerned. Upon receipt of the letter dated 26.09.2015, the petitioner proceeded to draw up an estimate, as required for the purpose of installation of a 25 KVA transformer in place of the existing 16 KVA. 6. The next event fell on 26.09.2015, when the application was forwarded to the petitioner, who was the Junior Engineer, posted at the substation concerned. Upon receipt of the letter dated 26.09.2015, the petitioner proceeded to draw up an estimate, as required for the purpose of installation of a 25 KVA transformer in place of the existing 16 KVA. 6. The petitioner asserts that neither the consumer in the application dated 15.09.2015 nor the officials of the Department ever intimated the petitioner of the fact that on an earlier occasion, the same consumer had got sanctioned a 25 KVA transformer in her name way back on 09.10.2007, a fact evident from from a certificate dated 09.10.2007, issued for the purpose. In the next leg of proceedings, after drawing up of the estimate and sanction, a 16 KVA transformer in place of the sanctioned 25 KVA was installed on account of the fact that a 25 KVA transformer was not available in the Electricity Store Centre at Banda. An application dated 26.09.2015 was moved by the consumer, Kuldeep Singh before the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jhansi, requesting legal action against the petitioner on the allegation of demanding illegal gratification for the purpose of installing a 25 KVA transformer, without inquiring into the status of his application dated 15.09.2015, raising a demand for replacement of the whole transformer with a new 25 KVA. 7. It is the petitioner's case that by time, a complaint was moved to the S.P., Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jhansi on 26.09.2015, the estimate for a 25 KVA was already drawn up by the petitioner and sent to the concerned SDO for installation of the device. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to demand illegal gratification for facilitating the installation of a 25 KVA transformer. The petitioner submits that the allegation was utterly mala fide. On 29.09.2015 while the petitioner was sitting at a tea-shop outside the office of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Banda, Kuldeep Singh approached and asked him to get the sum of Rs.15,000/- approximately, as per estimate, deposited in the concerned office. The moment the sum of money was taken out by Kuldeep and handed over to the petitioner, police personnel in plain clothes appeared and caught the petitioner, allegedly red- handed with the sum of Rs.15,000/-. The moment the sum of money was taken out by Kuldeep and handed over to the petitioner, police personnel in plain clothes appeared and caught the petitioner, allegedly red- handed with the sum of Rs.15,000/-. A First Information Report dated 29.09.2015 was lodged against him by the Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jhansi, one Ghanshyam Sachan, alleging commission of offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Pursuant to the FIR, the petitioner was arrested and lodged in jail. He was enlarged on bail after almost three months by an order of this Court at Lucknow made in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10893 of 2015. The FIR was investigated and culminated in a charge-sheet under Section 7/13 (i)(d)/ 13(ii), Prevention of Corruption Act, that gave rise to Sessions Trial No.409 of 2015 before the Court of the Special Judge (PC Act), Lucknow. The petitioner has emphasized that at the trial, the consumer Kuldeep Singh was examined as Prosecution Witness No.4. He was cross- examined on 06.10.2022 and again on 06.04.2023. He stated that the petitioner never demanded Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification for installation of a 25 KVA transformer. 8. The petitioner nevertheless was served with a charge- sheet on 03.12.2022, initially disciplinary proceedings, after a lapse of more than seven years of the incident, in which the petitioner was trapped, arrested and sent to jail. The charge-sheet dated 03.12.2022 carries the following solitary charge: 9. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet on 19.01.2023, denying the charge and explaining the incident. He raised pleas in defence. It is the petitioner's case in his reply to the charge-sheet as averred in paragraph No.9 of the writ petition that he never demanded any bribe of the complainant nor accepted any sum of money for facilitating the installation of a 25 KVA transformer. After receipt of the petitioner's reply, the Inquiry Committee proceeded with it, as the petitioner says, in violation of Regulation 7 of the Uttar Pradesh State Power Corporation Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020 (for short, 'the Regulations of 2020'), holding the charge proved. 10. Heard Mr. Manu Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, and Mr. Piyush Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. K.K. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3. 11. 10. Heard Mr. Manu Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, and Mr. Piyush Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. K.K. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure, by which he has been adjudged guilty by the Inquiry Committee, is utterly flawed because it is against the salutary principles, governing the holding of departmental inquiries in matters where a major penalty may be awarded. It is also urged that the inquiry has been held in violation of Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2020. It is urged that salutary principle as well as Regulation 7, that have been violated, make for two counts: firstly, because no date, time and place for holding an inquiry was fixed and communicated to the petitioner, vitiating the proceedings for violation of the principles of natural justice; and, secondly, because no witnesses in support of the charges were produced by the establishment, which is an imperative in any departmental inquiry, where a major penalty may be imposed. These facts are pleaded in paragraph Nos.11, 13 and 26 of the writ petition. 12. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, it is averred in paragraph Nos. 4(iii), 4(iv) and 4(v) (relevant part): “(iii). That the enquiry committee vide letter dated 27.12.2022 had fixed date, time and place for providing personal hearing to the petitioner as 07.01.2023 at 12:00 p.m. at the office of Chief Engineer (DP), UPPCL, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and in pursuance of the said letter, the petitioner appeared before the enquiry committee on 07.01.2023 and had got his statement recorded wherein he was supplied with the necessary documents and the petitioner himself refused to examine/cross examine any witness before the enquiry committee. A copy of the letter dated 27.12.2022 and the minutes of proceedings dated 07.01.2023 are being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-1 & CA-2 to this counter affidavit. (iv). That the enquiry committee after going through the material evidence on record and examining the reply, statement of the petitioner had found the Charge to be proved against the petitioner and had submitted its enquiry report on 04.03.2023. (v). …...... (iv). That the enquiry committee after going through the material evidence on record and examining the reply, statement of the petitioner had found the Charge to be proved against the petitioner and had submitted its enquiry report on 04.03.2023. (v). …...... Rule-7(7) of the Regulation-2020 provides that, in case the employee refuses the charges, the enquiry committee should call the witnesses, whose names are proposed in the charge sheet, to record their evidence. In the present case, neither any witness was proposed in the charge sheet by the enquiry committee nor the petitioner proposed any witness to examine/cross examine. So there was no occasion for examine/cross examine any witness. Therefore, no witness was examined by the corporation to lead the evidences or to prove the charges during the course of enquiry in the present case.........” 13. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. It is a salutary principle, governing all departmental inquiries, where a major penalty may be awarded, that after the issue of a charge-sheet, wherever the delinquent denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee must convene themselves formally into an Inquiry Tribunal. They must require the establishment, first in order through a Presenting Officer, to produce evidence, both documentary and oral, in support of the charge/ charges. Hearing before the inquiry does not mean that the charges are regarded proved by the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee and the delinquent summoned before them to make a statement that may dispel the charges. The Inquiry Officer or Committee, even if it comprises of members, who are otherwise part of the establishment, must distance themselves from their employers and act as an impartial arbiters. They must assume the charges to be without proof or weight or credit. They must require the establishment through the Presenting Officer to produce evidence in support of the charges, introducing documents and proving them by witnesses. The witnesses must also testify in support of the charges, which is imperative in a matter involving a major penalty. It is also noteworthy that the charges cannot be held proved because the delinquent does not file a reply or does not produce evidence in his defence. The witnesses must also testify in support of the charges, which is imperative in a matter involving a major penalty. It is also noteworthy that the charges cannot be held proved because the delinquent does not file a reply or does not produce evidence in his defence. Unless the delinquent admits the charges and makes a plenary admission of his guilt, the burden always lies on the establishment to produce evidence and prove the charges. It is quite another matter that if the delinquent does not appear at the hearing before the Inquiry Committee, the proceedings may be go ex parte. But, there also, the establishment have to produce evidence, both documentary and oral, to prove the charges; not that the charges would be proved by the delinquent's default of any kind. 15. In this case, if one were to look at the procedure, that has been adopted and acknowledged by the respondents, it is evident that the Inquiry Committee fixed a date time and place for hearing the petitioner on 07.01.2023 at 12:00 noon, which they intimated him by a letter dated 27.12.2022. When the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Committee at the appointed time, place and venue, they recorded his statement, supplying him necessary documents. The respondents say that the petitioner himself refused to examine/ cross-examine any witness before the Inquiry Committee. The aforesaid state of affairs, as they appear from paragraph No.4 (iii) of the counter affidavit, do little service to the respondents' cause. By the fixing of a date, time and place for holding the inquiry, is not meant the recording of the delinquent's statement and hearing him personally by the Inquiry Committee. The date, time and place, that has been fixed, is for hearing the establishment in support of the charges. The delinquent's turn to be called upon to produce evidence in his defence would come only after the establishment have examined their witnesses and produced all evidence. Of course, the witnesses for the establishment have to be offered to the delinquent for cross-examination and if the delinquent produces evidence in his defence, including witnesses, his witnesses too would have to be made available to the establishment for cross-examination. Nothing of the kind has apparently been done here. 16. Of course, the witnesses for the establishment have to be offered to the delinquent for cross-examination and if the delinquent produces evidence in his defence, including witnesses, his witnesses too would have to be made available to the establishment for cross-examination. Nothing of the kind has apparently been done here. 16. Paragraph No.4(iii) of the counter affidavit shows that the Inquiry Committee thought that the charges were proof of themselves and read the papers annexed to the charge-sheet or the petitioner's reply as evidence, without ever requiring the establishment to produce evidence in support of the charge. The statement of the petitioner, that the Inquiry Committee recorded on 07.01.2023, was not at all a hearing, envisaged by salutary procedure. It was a big violation of procedure, essential to a major penalty inquiry, where the petitioner was virtually interviewed viva voce, asked to give his statement before the Inquiry Committee, as if he had to dispel charge that was proved by the establishment. 17. The remark, that the petitioner himself refused to examine/ cross-examine witnesses, is to say the least, a product of utter misconception. If the establishment had produced witnesses, which the Inquiry Tribunal ought have required in every event, occasion would then arise for the petitioner to cross-examine them. Also, if the establishment had produced evidence, both documentary and oral, the petitioner's turn would then come to offer his evidence, which could be documentary as well as oral. When the establishment did not produce any evidence, and particularly did not examine any witnesses, there was no occasion for the petitioner to cross- examine or demand the production of any witness. After all, the petitioner would not demand the production of the establishment's witnesses. In the absence of any evidence produced by the establishment, there was no occasion for the petitioner to produce evidence of any kind. 18. In this case, if one were to look at the charge, the examination of witnesses in any event is a sine qua non for its proof, be it before a Court of law or a domestic forum, like the Inquiry Committee. The charge against the petitioner is about accepting a bribe from Kuldeep Singh and being caught red- handed in the act by the Police from the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The charge against the petitioner is about accepting a bribe from Kuldeep Singh and being caught red- handed in the act by the Police from the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Kuldeep Singh, who allegedly gave bribe to the petitioner and the police officer or officers, who laid the trap and arrested the petitioner, would be witnesses, in whose absence the charge can never be held proved. The charge being one, which proceeds from the misconduct that came to light as an offence, in consequence of arrest by the Police, all those involved with the process of the petitioner's arrest in connection with the alleged taking of bribe are essential to prove it. This is not the kind of a charge, which arises out of some recorded transaction in departmental documents, that can be proved, may be by the Presenting Officer, testifying a witness. 19. This position of the law is firmly settled as held by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha , (2010) 2 SCC 772 , Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others , (2009) 2 SCC 570 , State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh , (2008) 8 SCC 236 and the Bench decisions of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another , 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB) , Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P. , 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB) and State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another , 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB) . 20. The position of the law in this regard that has withstood the test of time has been recently endorsed by the Supreme Court in Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 , where it has been held: “ 12. Learned counsel for the State was ad idem to the submissions of the appellant's counsel that no witness whatsoever was examined during the course of the inquiry proceedings. On a minute appraisal of the Inquiry Report, it is evident that other than referring to the documents pursuant to the so-called irregular transactions constituting the basis of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer failed to record the evidence of even a single witness in order to establish the charges against the appellant. 13. On a minute appraisal of the Inquiry Report, it is evident that other than referring to the documents pursuant to the so-called irregular transactions constituting the basis of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer failed to record the evidence of even a single witness in order to establish the charges against the appellant. 13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank , (2009) 2 SCC 570 and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat , (2013) 4 SCC 301 . 21. The sequitur would be that all proceedings, including the impugned order of dismissal, would have to be quashed, of course granting liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh, if they so elect, from the stage of the charge-sheet. 22. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed . The impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Managing Director of Corporation is hereby quashed . The respondents shall reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith, in the first instance. It will, thereafter, be open to the respondents, if they so elect, to proceed afresh against the petitioner on the basis of the same charge-sheet as the one on the foot of which the order impugned dated 05.03.2024 was passed and proceed in the manner indicated in this judgment. 23. In the event, the respondents elect to pursue fresh proceedings against the petitioner, they will pay him current salary, but backwages shall abide by the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. In the event fresh proceedings are elected not to be pursued, the petitioner will be entitled to 50% of the back-wages for the period that he remained out of service. It will further be open to the respondents, if they so elect, to place the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry. In that event, from the date of suspension, the respondents shall be obliged to pay the petitioner subsistence allowance regularly, without asking him to furnish a non-alternative engagement certificate. In either event, if fresh proceedings are taken, the disciplinary proceedings shall be expedited, wherein the petitioner will cooperate. 24. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. In that event, from the date of suspension, the respondents shall be obliged to pay the petitioner subsistence allowance regularly, without asking him to furnish a non-alternative engagement certificate. In either event, if fresh proceedings are taken, the disciplinary proceedings shall be expedited, wherein the petitioner will cooperate. 24. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow through the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance).