- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. 2259 (SB) of 1993 dated September 10, 1997.
(3.) From a perusal of the record, it appears that certain complaints were received against Respondent 1 somewhere in 1988- 89 which led to Respondent 1 being placed under suspension w. e. f. 1/12/1989. Respondent 1 challenged the order of suspension by filing Writ Petition No. 1836 of 1990. During the pendency of that writ petition, a charge-sheet was issued to Respondent 1 and an enquiry officer was appointed on 18/4/1990 to conduct the enquiry against him. There is some dispute about the reason for the non-appearance of Respondent 1 before the enquiry officer but the fact remains that on 19/2/1992, the enquiry officer gave an ex-parte report against the respondent. Even thereafter, no notice was issued to the respondent to show cause against his dismissal and on 15/10/1992, Respondent 1 was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was published in the newspaper on 28/12/1992. Respondent 1 successfully challenged the order of dismissal and his writ petition was allowed on 10/9/1997. The Division Bench of the High Court while allowing the writ petition found that the report of the enquiry officer had not been supplied to Respondent 1 even though the proceedings had taken place after 20/11/1990. Relying upon the judgment in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan case as clarified by the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL v. Karunakar the High Court held that the order of dismissal of Respondent 1 was vitiated for non-supply of the report of the enquiry officer and for denial of opportunity to Respondent 1 to represent against the report of the enquiry officer.;