By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the records.

2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 21.3.2006 passed by respondent No. 2, Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P, whereby petitioner has been punished by reducing one rank i.e from the post of Deputy Director (Social Welfare) to the post of Additional District Development Officer (Social Welfare).

3. Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Jitendra Kumar, Advocate, counsel for petitioner contended that before imposing such major penalty, no oral enquiry was conducted inasmuchas charge-sheet was issued to petitioner to which reply was given and thereafter enquiry report was submitted. Then notice was given to petitioner and thereafter impugned punishment order has been passed.

4. Petitioner was initially appointed as District Social Welfare Officer after his selection by U.P. Public Service Commission (U.P.P.S.C) in the year 1977. He was promoted to the post of Additional District Development Officer (Social Welfare) in October,1980 and further promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Social Welfare) Faizabad Division, Faizabad in November, 1992.

5. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 3.5.1995 while working as Deputy Director (Social Welfare) Faizabad Division, Faizabad on the charge that he has committed illegality in purchase and allotment of agricultural land under the Scheme of Special Component Plan. Thereafter charge-sheet was served upon him on 22.11.1996 to which petitioner submitted reply on 12.3.1997. He challenged suspension order dated 3.5.1995 in Writ Petition No. 348(S/B) of 1995 before High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. Before aforesaid proceedings could be completed, petitioner was again suspended vide order dated 6.11.1998 and on the same day, a charge-sheet was served upon him, containing charges which was also replied on 27.8.1998.

6. So far as Writ Petition No. 42343 of 1998 against suspension order dated 6.11.1998 is concerned the same is still pending and vide order dated 20.2.1999, this Court stayed the suspension order dated 6.11.1998 observing that the charge contained therein could not be termed as misconduct. So far as supplementary charge-sheet dated 3.8.1999 regarding illegal employment of Motilal Nainwal on 23.3.1998 is concerned, reply was given by the petitioner on 15.10.1999. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted reports dated 11.10.1999 and 17.2.2000.

7. The Inquiry Officer held charge No. 1, with respect to illegally committed by the petitioner in purchase and non-allotment of land purchased under Special Component Scheme,proved. Likewise other charges Nos. 3,5, 6,7,8,9,10,14,15 and 16 were held proved against petitioner. Charge Nos. 2,4,11,12 and 13 were not found proved.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid enquiry report, impugned punishment order dated 21.3.2006 was passed.

9. Submission on behalf of petitioner is that major penalty of reduction in rank has been imposed on the petitioner without holding oral inquiry which is mandatory before imposition of major penalty.

10. In Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills, 2001 (1) UPLBEC 1475, this Court has held that without conducting oral inquiry, major penalty could not have been imposed and impugned order of punishment was in utter violation of principles of natural justice. We find that law on this subject is well-settled that before imposing major penalty holding of oral inquiry is mandatory and in absence thereof order of major penalty cannot sustain.

11. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. The workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719, 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 c