Disciplinary proceedings against government employees must adhere to procedural rules and principles of natural justice; failure to do so, especially with unexplained delays, renders the inquiry invalid.

1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated23.02.2004 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Supply Inspector on 16.05.1973. In the year 1984, the petitioner was posted as Supply Inspector at Kanpur. By the order dated 05.04.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies, Uttar Pradesh- respondent no. 2, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The Regional Food Controller, Jhansi was appointed as Inquiry Officer by the order dated 05.04.1999. The Regional Food Controller, Jhansi issued a charge-sheet dated 21.01.2000 to the petitioner containing two charges. The petitioner was directed to submit its reply within two weeks from the date of receipt of the charge sheet and, in case, no reply was submitted by the petitioner within the time limit prescribed then, it will be deemed that petitioner has nothing to say in the matter. After receiving the charge- sheet, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Inquiry Officer on 06.04.2000 mentioning therein that the charge-sheet was received by the petitioner on 03.04.2000 and since matter is 17 years old, he will try to submit his reply within time frame or will request for further time. Thereafter, another letter dated 11.04.2000 was submitted by the petitioner to the Inquiry Officer requesting him to furnish documents mentioned in the letter dated 11.04.2000, so that, he may give effective reply to the charge-sheet. On 17.04.2000, the petitioner submitted another letter requesting for two weeks' further time to submit reply and has also requested that the documents mentioned in letter dated 11.04.2000 be provided to the petitioner. Again on 02.05.2000, the petitioner requested that the documents referred in letter dated 11.04.2000 be provided to the petitioner and as the time for submitting the reply is going to expire on 02.05.2000, he may be granted one month more time to submit his reply. By order dated 10.05.2000 passed by the Inquiry Officer, fifteen days' time was granted to the petitioner to submit his explanation with a rider that, in case, explanation is not submitted by petitioner, then on the basis of documents, Inquiry Report will be submitted. On 24.05.2000, the petitioner submitted his reply denying all the charges levelled against him and also giving his explanation to the charges. Along with his reply, petitioner submitted affidavit of Prem Narayan Gupta dated 23.05.2000, affidavit of Kasturi Lal dated 23.05.2000 and affidavit of Surenderjit Singh dated 23.05.2000 in support of his explanation as the documentary evidences. By letter dated 24.06.2000, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 04.07.2000 for personal hearing. On 04.07.2000, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer for personal hearing but the inquiry could not be completed on that day. On 11.07.2000, the petitioner submitted certain documents in support of his case along with an application. By order dated 30.10.2000, the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No. 2 called for a reply from the petitioner regarding Inquiry Officer's Report dated 21.08.2000. Along with the order dated 30.10.2000, the petitioner was served upon the Inquiry Report which was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 21.08.2000. Copy of the Inquiry Report has been annexed as Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition. On 12.12.2000, the petitioner submitted his reply to the notice dated 30.10.2000 issued by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 by order dated 23.07.2001 awarded following penalties:-

i) petitioner was reverted to his initial basic pay and he was also awarded a censure entry.

Against the order dated 23.07.2001, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1, the appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and the punishment order dated 23.07.2001 given by respondent No. 2 was set aside. The petitioner was a