Advocates Appeared:
T. N. Singh, Mukesh Verma, Chandra Prakash Pandey, Advs., for the Appellant(s).
Anurag Kishore, Abhinav Shrivastava, Rajesh Kumar, Advs., for the Repondent(s).

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Subject: Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings [judgement_subject]
• Acts Referred: Constitution of India: Art.311(2); Service Law: U.P. Government Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules: R.7, R.7(5) [judgement_act_referred]
• Core Principle: Non-disclosure of documents having a potential to cause prejudice to a government servant in the enquiry proceedings would clearly be a denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the charges (!) (!) .
• Right to Documents: A government employee facing a department enquiry is entitled to all relevant statements, documents, and other materials to enable him to have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself (!) (!) .
• Specific Rule Violation: The inquiry proceedings were vitiated because the department denied the respondent access to documents relied upon against him, in flagrant disregard of the mandatory sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules (!) (!) (!) .
• Ineffective Defense: Without access to the documents, the respondent could not effectively prepare his defense, cross-examine witnesses, or point out inconsistencies (!) (!) .
• Condemned Unheard: The respondent was condemned unheard because the enquiry officer failed to fix any date for the conduct of the enquiry, meaning no witnesses were examined in support of the charges (!) (!) (!) .
• Rejection of "Custody" Argument: The submission that the respondent was in custody of the documents because he was posted in the same division was rejected, as he was suspended and no longer in charge of the office (!) (!) .
• Natural Justice: Article 311(2) of the Constitution mandates that departmental inquiries be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice to ensure fairness (!) (!) .
• Outcome: The High Court correctly set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against this judgment (!) (!) (!) .