By the Court.—Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Shiv Nath Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that claimant/respondent No. 1 was placed under suspension vide order dated 16.10.2002 on the allegations of loss of Government revenue during his tenure from 20.6.1998 to 25.7.2000 while he was posted as Trade Tax Officer, Grade-II at Raebareli and for dereliction in duty. On 24.10.2002 charge-sheet was issued to the claimant/respondent No. 1 and four charges were levelled against him but the requisite documents were not enclosed with the charge-sheet. The copies of documents relied upon in support of charges were made available to the claimant/respondent bo.1 for perusal on 26.2.2003 but not supplied as evidence cited in the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the enquiry proceeding was initiated by the Enquiry Officer.

3. As per case of the claimant/respondent No. 1, no date, time and place were fixed by the Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry nor the claimant/respondent was ever called for oral enquiry. The claimant/respondent No. 1 was also not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses during the course of enquiry. On 24.6.2003 the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report and thereafter a notice dated 8.7.2003 alongwith copy of enquiry report was served upon the claimant/respondent to submit his reply. The claimant/respondent No. 1 submitted his reply dated 4.8.2003.

4. On 29.9.2003, punishing authority passed an impugned order awarding the punishment for stopping one annual increment with permanent effect and also a censure entry to the claimant/respondent.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, claim/respondent filed an appeal, dismissed vide order dated 6.7.2004, moved a review of his appeal, also dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2005.

6. So, the claimant/respondent No. 1 had filed the Claim Petition No. 1378/2005 under Section 4 of the U.P. State Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 for quashing of the orders dated 29.9.2003, 6.7.2004, 24.7.2004 and 18.10.2005.

7. After exchange of the pleadings, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition by means of the order dated 1.8.2014. The operative portion of the same is being quoted herein below :

“The claim petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.9.2003 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to grant the arrears of increment withheld from due date. The order dated 3.10.2006 confining the petitioner to the subsistence allowance only needs no interference. No order is made as to costs.”

8. While allowing the claim petition vide order dated 1.8.2014, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that punishment awarded to the claimant/respondent No. 1 is a major penalty, so, enquiry is to be held as per Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the Tribunal has held that there is nothing to show on record that the letters mentioned above were sent ever to the petitioner, mere writing letters is not sufficient to be treated as information. Thus the requirement of the Rule-7 of 1999 Rules has not been fulfilled. In the case of Radhey Kant Khare v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd., 2003 (21) LCD 610, it has been held that oral enquiry is a must whether the delinquent made a request for it or not. The information should be furnished to the delinquent fixing the date, time and place of the enquiry. The relevant part of the said citation is as follows :

“After a charge-sheet is given to the employee an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not. Hence a notice should be issued to him indicating him the date, time and place of the enquiry. On that date the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence.”

From the above it is clear that the petitioner has been deprived of his right to be heard personally or to cross-examine the witn