JUDGMENT Rakesh Sharma, J.
1. Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. No one has appeared for opposite party Nos. 1 and 4.
2. The petitioner, Suresh Chandra Soti, who was working as Senior Assistant in Zila Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, Muzaffar Nagar, has assailed the order of dismissal dated 16.5.1990 passed by the Sachiv, Rajya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, U. P., Lucknow. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Senior Assistant in Zila Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, Bijnor. Later on, petitioner was transferred to Muzaffar Nagar. A formal regular departmental enquiry was initiated against him by the appointing authority after suspending the petitioner on 26.10.1988. A charge-sheet containing nine charges, was issued against the petitioner by the Joint Secretary, Public Enquiry Officer, Sahkari Ganna Simiti, U. P., Lucknow. It was indicated in the charge-sheet that the petitioner had not discharged his duties bona fidely and honestly. He had committed misconduct and mislead the superior officers in getting the service of some employees terminated caused pecuniary losses to the Ganna Simiti, Bijnor, by making fabrication/ interpolation in the Government records. He was entrusted with the establishment work relating to the employees but he had failed to discharge his duties properly. His integrity was also not found upto the mark. After receiving the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 8.3.1989. According to the petitioner, after submission of charge-sheet, no date, place and time of the enquiry was fixed nor any proper enquiry was held against the petitioner and no evidence was recorded. The documents were also not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing by the enquiry officer. An enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the punishing authority, i.e., Sachiv Rajya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, U. P., Lucknow, a copy which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The enquiry report reveals that the petitioner was exonerated from the charge Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 9. Charge Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 were held to be partly proved. Only the charge No. 5 was found to be proved against the petitioner. Charge No. 5 which was found fully proved against the petitioner, was not grave in nature.
3. After receiving the enquiry report the punishing authority, i.e., Sachiv, Rajya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, U. P., Lucknow issued a show cause notice on 19.5.1989 proposing minor penalty against the petitioner. The said proposed penalty in the show cause notice dated 19.5.1989 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, is quoted below :
^^fl) vkjksiksa dh xq:rk] xEHkhjrk rFkk lsok fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 68 ds uSlfxZd U;k; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ,rn}kjk dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh dh tkrh gS fd D;ksa u vkids fuyEcu vof/k dk osru jksd fn;k tk; vkSj o"kZ 1986&87 ds fy, rnfo"k;d pfj= iaftdk esa rnksijkUr izfo"V vafdr dj nh tk; A**
4. There is no whisper in the show cause notice that the petitioner was going to be dismissed or removed from services by the punishing authority.
5. The appointing authority of the petitioner, i.e., Sachiv, Rajya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, U. P., Lucknow has passed an order of dismissal from services against the petitioner on 16.5.1990. This order is impugned in this writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
7. The order of dismissal is not sustainable and is violative of principles of natural justice. This order is a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. The punishing authority has not applied its mind to the material on record, the version of the petitioner and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. In the present case, the enquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner from main charges (.e., 1,6,7 and 9, other charges were partly proved and only 5th charge which was not grave or serious was found to be proved. The enquiry officer did not propose any punishment in his report. It appears that enquiry officer has left its discretion on the appointing/ punishing authority. Interestingly, the punishing authority vide show cause notice dated 19.5.1989 has proposed minor penalty. The Rajya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran issued another show cause notice on 22.8.1989 and the petitioner had submitted his detailed reply on 8.9.1989. It appears that the petitioner's reply to second show cause notice was considered and appreciated by the Rajya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran. Moreover, no reasons have been recorded by the said Pradhikaran nor punishing authority while deferring with the report of the enquiry officer. The law is settled that if the punishing authority forms a different opinion, then the enquiry officer must record the reasons in the order and must provide an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee as to why ha is in disagreement with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. In the present case, the enquiry officer has not proposed any punishment rather exonerated the petitioner from most of the charges. Thus, there is no sufficient material on the basis of which an opinion can be formed to dismiss the petitioner. Show, cause notice issued against the petitioner is also non-reasoned and non-speaking. The second show cause notice dated 22.8.1989 appears to have been issued with a pre-determined mind to punish the petitioner and pre-judging issues.
8. The order of dismissal also does not indicate the reasons for awarding punishment of the dismissal. The order of dismissal dos not commensurate with the charges proved against the petitioner. Although, this Court could not look into the sufficiency of material. It could only see the existence of the material for forming an opinion for issuing a punishment order against a employee. In the present case, the impugned order is wholly violative of principles of natural justice and is against the relevant Services Rules applicable to the employees of Rajya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran. The detailed procedure has not been followed while passing the order of dismissal. This conclusion finds support from the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Krishna v. Union of India, 1995 (71) FLR 929 (SC) and Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 (8) FLR 341 (SC).
9. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 16.5.1990. As 1 have been informed that petitioner has retired on 30.11.1992, the petitioner shall be entitled for full salary for the period from 26.10.1988 to 20.11.1992 treating him to be in service. Petitioner shall be entitled for other consequential benefits like retiral benefits etc. Judgment and order shall be complied with within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.