By the Court.—Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Krishna Chandra , learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 25.3.2010 passed by learned Single Judge by means of which writ petition challenging the punishments awarded to the appellant which are four in number, has been dismissed. The punishments which awarded to the appellant are as under :

(1) Recovery of Rs. 29,040/- from the salary of the petitioner

(2) Stoppage salary of the suspension period.

(3) Stoppage two annual increments with cumulative effect.

(4) Adverse entry in the character roll.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after submission of reply to the chargesheet , the enquiry officer did not fix date, time and place for holding the enquiry and merely on the report submitted to the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) , the impugned order has been passed.

4. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed that on perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner appeared before the inquiry officer in accordance with the request made by him after supply of chargesheet. During the course of the inquiry he said that he does not want to say anything except whatever he had said in the statement. He did not express his desire to cross examine the witnesses and did not specify anything to adduce any defence witness in support of his case therefore the aforesaid plea is devoid of merit.

5. In what manner , disciplinary enquiry is to be done has been the subject matter of consideration in various petitions of this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court .

6. In the case of Gyan Das Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (27) LCD 926, this Court has held that :

“In the present case, undoubtedly, no oral evidence was recorded during the course of inquiry proceedings, It is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record oral evidence to substantiate charges. Documents on record should have been proved by cogent reasons by recording finding of fact on merit by the inquiry officer but the same has not been done. The inquiry has been conducted in utter disregard to principle of natural justice. Since the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the inquiry report which suffers from substantial illegality and violative of principles of natural justice, the order of punishment vitiates . The writ petitioner deserved to be allowed.”

7. In the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others v. Shri Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, 2009 (27) LCD 990 , this Court has held as under :

“In case an employee is charged of misconduct and charge sheet is issued, it has to contain precise and specific charges alongwith the evidence which the department wants to rely upon, in proving the charges alongwith the copy of documents should be provided to the delinquent. After asking the reply from delinquent, the enquiry is to proceed where the charges which are to be proved by the department concerned, on the basis of the evidence which the department chooses to produce, oral as well as documentary. The delinquent also has to be provided adequate and reasonable opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal, maybe oral or documentary or both. It is on the basis of the evidence so led and the material available on record that the inquiry officer has to apply his mind to find out whether the charge levelled against him stands proved or not.”

8. In the case of State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236, Hon’ble the Supreme Court had laid down the following principles as to how the enquiry is to be conducted :

“(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities.

(ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the enquiry officer. If