Court No. - 5 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 139 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramsri Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manta Ram Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,S.M. Mishra Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. This is a review application. On 16.01.2025 following order was passed: "Heard Sri Manta Ram Gupta and Sri Daya Ram Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has assailed the order of termination of his service dated 30.04.2014. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the orders dated 18.06.2015 and 14.03.2018 passed by the departmental authorities rejecting his departmental appeal and revision respectively. The short contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner were terminated without following the procedure established by law. The chargesheet was never served on the petitioner prior to initiation of the enquiry proceedings. Attention is called to the pleadings in this regard in the writ petition. Sri S.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid submissions from the records or from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. In the wake of submissions this Court finds that the chargesheet was never served upon the petitioner prior to initiation of the enquiry proceedings. In the absence of chargesheet the petitioner was disabled from effectively tendering his defence before the enquiry officer. The aforesaid procedure adopted by the respondents is not known to law and the prejudice caused to the petitioner is beyond recall. The impugned order of termination dated 30.04.2014 is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The aforesaid procedure is arbitrary and illegal and vitiates the order of termination. The orders passed by the appellate authority and revisional authority have failed to redeem the aforesaid errors which go to the root of the matter. In the wake of preceding discussion the impugned orders dated 30.04.2014, 18.06.2015 and 14.03.2018 passed by the departmental authorities rejecting his departmental appeal and revision respectively are quashed. The matter is remitted to respondents authorities with the following directions: 1. The chargesheet shall be served on the petitioner alongwith relied on documents and list of witnesses. 2. The enquiry officer shall proceed with the enquiry proceedings as per law and shall also observe the following procedures. a. The enquiry officer shall fix dates and inform the petitioner about the same in advance. b. The list of department witnesses shall be provided in advance to the petitioner. c. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing to cross examine the witnesses. 3. The petitioner shall cooperate in the enquiry proceedings. 4. The disciplinary authority to issue a show cause notice alongwith enquiry report to the petitioner in case disciplinary action is contemplated against the petitioner, 5. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to respond to the said show cause notice, 6. The disciplinary authority shall pass appropriate orders as per law. The procedure shall be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is open to the respondents to put the petitioner under suspension immediately after order of reinstatement is passed in compliance of this judgment. The petitioner shall be entitled to suspension allowance during the course of enquiry. The writ petition is allowed." Sri Manta Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inadvertence material facts could not be placed before the Court at the time of dictation of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner superannuated from service on 06.05.2019. Learned Standing Counsel and Sri S.M. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 submit that the respondent Corporation does not have any provision for initiation of departmental enquiry post retirement. The directions remitting the matter to the authorities and to continue the enquiry are liable to be reviewed and recalled. Petitioner is held to be entitled 50% backwages and all other pensionary benefits in the facts of the cases. The petitioner shall be deemed to be reinstated for grant of said benefits. The procedure shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In this wake the order 16.01.2025 is partially reviewed. The review application is partly allowed. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Pravin Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad