By the Court.—Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1.

2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.2.2004 passed by respondent-1 imposing punishment of reduction of pension by fifty per cent and forfeiture of entire gratuity.

3. Petitioner was working as Accounts Officer in the Office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari and retired on 31.1.1998. Before his retirement, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 17.1.1997 which was replied by him and thereafter Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report which has culminated in the impugned order of punishment.

4. Counsel for petitioner submitted that enquiry has been continued after retirement of petitioner under Article 351-A of Civil Services Regulations (hereinafter referred to as “CSR”), which provides that procedure for enquiry would be same as is applicable in the case of major penalty but in the present case, no date, time or place for oral enquiry was ever fixed and after receiving reply from petitioner, Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report and thereafter punishment order has been passed. In this regard, specific averment has been made in para 20 of writ petition.

5. State has replied para 20 of writ petition in para 12 of counter-affidavit by denying the same and stating that full opportunity was given. When called upon, learned Standing Counsel could not tell as to in what manner opportunity was given.

6. In fact, various averments contained in counter-affidavit and in particular para-10 shows that petitioner’s reply is said to have been fully examined by Enquiry Officer and thereafter enquiry report was submitted which shows that no oral enquiry, whatsoever, has been conducted.

7. In the present case, charge-sheet was issued to petitioner which is undated but it is said in para 13 of writ petition that the same was served on 17.1.1997. This is admitted in para 7 of counter-affidavit. Petitioner submitted reply on 28.1.1997 as said in para 15 of writ petition and that is also not denied in para 9 of counter-affidavit. A letter sent by Enquiry Officer dated 7.8.1997 required petitioner to make available copies of certain letters which was also replied by petitioner on 7.8.1997. Thereafter case of petitioner is that no date, place or time was fixed for oral enquiry and no oral enquiry was conducted at all. Enquiry Officer submitted report, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-8 to writ petition, but it is also undated. In the counter-affidavit also no date of enquiry has been discussed. Petitioner retired on 31.1.1998 after attaining age of superannuation. Show-cause notice along copy of enquiry report was forwarded to petitioner on 17.3.1998.

8. As per provisions of Article 351A of CSR, if a disciplinary enquiry has been instituted before retirement of Government Servant, the same shall continue in accordance with procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service can be made. This is evident from Regulation 351A CSR read in entirety alongwith proviso (a)(iii). This is what has been said by this Court also in Gopi Chand Bishnoi v. State of U.P. and another, 2007 (4) AWC 3591. In the present case, it is evident that enquiry has not been conducted in such as manner.

9. It has been held repeatedly that an enquiry which may lead to punishment of dismissal would include necessarily an oral enquiry and it is mandatory.

10. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. The workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719, Supreme Court observed “It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way to cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this ch