By the Court.—Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioners and Sri Manish Misra, Advocate, for claimant-respondent.

2. This writ petition has come up against judgment and order dated 15.9.2014 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 1265 of 2002 allowing the aforesaid Claim Petition and setting aside order of punishment of dismissal dated 18.7.2001 and appellate order dated 9.7.2003 on the ground that after serving charge-sheet and receiving reply from delinquent employee denying charges, no oral enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer by fixing date, time and place and straightway he submitted report whereafter copy of enquiry report was submitted to delinquent employee and thereafter order of punishment was passed. Tribunal has found that procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1999”) has not been followed at all.

3. Learned Standing counsel could not dispute that no oral enquiry was conducted in the case in hand and this finding recorded by Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. He also could not dispute that non holding of oral inquiry before imposing major penalty would vitiate the entire proceeding including order of punishment.

4. 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 character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted.

5. 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. 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.

6. In Punjab National Bank v. A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160, (vide para 66), Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in the presence of charge-sheeted employee and he must be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. 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).

7. In S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 212, Court set aside a dismissal order which was passed without giving employee an opportunity of cross-examination.

8. This Court in Subhas Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000(1) UPLBEC 541, said :

“In our opinion after the petitioner replied to the charge-sheet a date should have been fixed for the enquiry and the petitioner should have been intimated the date, time and place of the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should have been led in his presence and he should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him and also he should have been given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner in response to this intimation had failed to appear for the enquiry then an ex parte enquiry should have been held but the petitioner’s service should have not been terminated without holding an enquiry. In the present case it appears that no regular enquiry was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner’s reply to the charge-sheet he was given a show-cause notice and thereafter the dismis