Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The petitioner has been imposed with penalty of reduction in pay-scale by placing him at the lowest of the pay-scale and withholding arrears of salary for the period of suspension, by impugned order of punishment dated 23.2.2000, passed by Deputy Collector, Mohammadabad, District - Ghazipur. The appellate order dated 17th May, 2004, passed by Collector, Ghazipur, dismiss petitioner’s appeal against above order of punishment, giving rise to present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that after service of charge-sheet and submitting reply thereto by petitioner, the enquiry officer did not conduct any oral enquiry, whatsoever, and submitted his report straightaway, holding petitioner guilty and consequent punishment order had been passed. The counsel for petitioner urges that entire proceedings have been conducted in utter violation of principles of natural justice, since oral inquiry is must.

4. It is evident from the record that charge-sheet dated 17.10.1999, was served upon petitioner levelling five charges. Petitioner submitted reply dated 12.11.1999, denying all the charges. Thereafter no date for oral enquiry was fixed. The enquiry officer straightaway submitted report dated 30.12.1999, holding petitioner guilty of all charges.

5. A notice dated 2.2.2000 was issued to petitioner, after receiving inquiry report by Deputy Collector i.e. disciplinary authority, to which petitioner submitted reply dated 15.2.2002 Thereafter, order of punishment dated 23.2.2000 was passed. There against petitioner preferred appeal dated 23.5.2000, which has been dismissed by Collector, Ghazipur vide impugned order dated 15.5.2004/17.5.2004.

6. Thus, admittedly, no oral enquiry has been conducted by Enquiry Officer and no date for oral enquiry at all has been fixed.

7. Where a major penalty has to be imposed, an oral enquiry is mandatory as held by Apex Court in State of U.P. 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. In the present case, since no oral enquiry has been conducted, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

8. The question as to whether non holding of oral inquiry can vitiate the entire proceeding or not has also been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in Salahuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ESC 1667. The Court has held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment. This Court, in paras 10 and 11 of the judgment has said:

“10. ... Non holding of oral inquiry in such a case is a serious matter and goes to the root of the case.

11. A Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541, considering the question as to whether holding of an oral inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills and others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475 and Laturi Singh v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and others, Writ Petition No. 12939 of 2001, decided on 6.5.2005.”

9. And a Division Bench in which I was also member in Sohan Lal v. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and another, in Writ Petition No. 43331 of 2000, decided on 11.1.2013, has also considered this issue in great detail. After referring various authorities on the said aspect it has reiterated, if oral enquiry has not been conducted when charge-sheet has been issued, containing charges which may result in a major penalty, then non holding of oral enquiry will be fatal and would vitiate entire pr