By the Court.—Heard Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. The writ petition is directed against order dated 14.10.2005 passed by Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow imposing punishment of dismissal upon petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department.

3. The only ground of challenge pressed before this Court is that though a major penalty has been imposed upon petitioner but no oral inquiry whatsoever was conducted by Inquiry Officer. After submission of charge-sheet without holding any oral inquiry and recording of statement of witnesses, Inquiry Officer straightway submitted report and thereafter punishment of dismissal has been imposed upon petitioner on the basis of said inquiry report. Our attention is drawn to para 3 of writ petition, which reads as under:

“3. That the Enquiry Officer did not hold any enquiry in the matter. No opportunity of oral hearing was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear and participate in the enquiry. The petitioner was never informed about the date, time and place for holding enquiry. The petitioner submits that it is settled law that non-submission of reply to the charge-sheet would not mean that the charges stands admitted and do not require any proof in the departmental proceedings. Since no enquiry was been held by the Enquiry Officer in the matter, the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner stands vitiated being violative of the principles of natural justice and Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which lays down the procedure for holding enquiry where major penalty is to be awarded, and the impugned order dated 14.10.2005 is rendered illegal and unsustainable.”

4. The respondents in reply to para 3 of writ petition in para 5 of counter-affidavit said that petitioner was given opportunity to submit his reply but he did not cooperate with Inquiry officer and did not submit any reply, therefore, Inquiry Officer submitted report and thereafter punishment has been imposed.

5. Thus it is evident from record that no oral inquiry whatsoever was conducted by Inquiry Officer. Now the sole question up for consideration is, whether non holding of oral inquiry would vitiate inquiry report or not.

6. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. The workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719, the 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 character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted.

7. In State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158, Court held that omission to give opportunity to the officer to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. The Court also held that in the enquiry witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations, and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine these witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence.

8. In Punjab National Bank v. A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160, (vide para 66) the Supreme Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in the presence of the charge-sheeted employee and he must be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. The same view was taken in A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ 396, and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ 78 (SC).

9. In S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 212, Court set aside a dism