By the Court.—Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen from judgment and order dated 10.6.22010 passed by State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the (Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 1849 of 1999 filed by claimant-respondent No. 1 challenging order of punishment dated 5.2.1997 and appellate order dated 5.11.1998 passed by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, recovery of Rs. 17298/- and ‘Censure’. Besides, appellate authority has also held that period of suspension shall be treated to be on duty but for the period of suspension no salary, except subsistence allowance shall be paid.

3. Tribunal found that though Inquiry Officer was appointed since inquiry for major penalty was initiated by departmental authority after placing respondent No. 1 under suspension but no oral inquiry was conducted and after receiving reply from concerned employee Inquiry officer submitted report and thereafter order of punishment was passed, said proceedings are wholly illegal and contrary to law. In the result, Tribunal has allowed claim petition and set aside order of punishment. It also held that claimant-respondent No. 1 shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that since charges were supported by documentary evidences, therefore, no oral inquiry was found necessary.

5. However, from charge-sheet (page 59 of paper book) we find that documents which were relied in support of charges included some preliminary inquiry report and other documents of concerned society. In respect of charge No. 6 a complaint made by employees was also one of the document relied in support of charge. Aforesaid preliminary inquiry report and complaint etc. could not have been treated to be a valid evidence admissible even in departmental inquiry unless author of aforesaid documents are examined and delinquent employee is given opportunity to cross-examine the same. It cannot be said that in every case where documents are relied, oral inquiry is not to be conducted. It is settled that unless contents of a document which is not admitted, are proved by the author, who is examined before the inquiry officer and is available for cross-examination by the delinquent employee, such document cannot be deemed to be proved and therefore such document cannot be relied to hold a delinquent employee guilty and to impose punishment upon him. We are fortified in taking this view by Apex Court’s judgment in M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen and others, AIR 1972 SC 330, where Court in para 14 of the judgment has observed as under:

“But the application of principle of natural justice does not imply that what is not evidence can be acted upon. On the other hand what it means is that no materials can be relied upon to establish a contested fact which are not spoken to by persons who are competent to speak about them and are subjected to cross-examination by the party against whom they are sought to be used. When a document is produced in a Court or a Tribunal the question that naturally arises is, is it a genuine document, what are its contents and are the statements contained therein true. When the Appellant produced the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the Company, it does not by its mere production amount to a proof of it or of the truth of the entries therein. If these entries are challenged the Appellant must prove each of such entries by producing the books and speaking from the entries made therein. If a letter or other document is produced to establish some fact which is relevant to the enquiry the writer must be produced or his affidavit in respect thereof be filed and opportunity afforded to the opposite party who challenges this fact. This is both in accord with