S.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.09.2008, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, passed by opposite party No. 1.
(2.) THE facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was working on the post of Junior Engineer in the Lucknow Development Authority. On 01.07.2005, opposite party No. 3 on the basis of enquiry against Brahmanand Pandey, Workcharge Supervisor, Sudhir Srivastava and Brijesh Shukla, Assistant Accountants, Pradeep Kesharwani, Upper Group Assistant/ Accounts Clerk, Narendra Bhushan, Financial Controller, Paras Nath, Accounts Officer and Lalit Kishore Mehrotra, Chief Engineer along with the petitioner, held them responsible for making illegal payment to a construction company. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge sheet dated 2 1.01.2006, which was served upon the petitioner on 24.01.2006. The petitioner demanded several documents from the enquiry officer in order to enable him to file effective reply to the charge sheet and the petitioner was permitted to inspect the documents on various dates and ultimately certain documents demanded by the petitioner were not found relevant to the subject and hence he was not permitted to inspect. Thereafter the petitioner submitted reply on 20.07.2006. Considering the reply of the petitioner, the enquiry officer submitted an enquiry report dated 10.10.2006 on the basis of which opposite party No. 1 issued show cause notice, which was served upon the petitioner on 0 1.02.2007, directing him to submit his reply in respect of the findings recorded in the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 03.02.2007. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 passed the dismissal order dated 02.09. 2008. Hence this writ petition. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no oral enquiry as contemplated under law was held and neither any date, time and place for holding enquiry was fixed nor the petitioner was informed in this regard. He further submits that the petitioner submitted an interim reply to the charge sheet and only on the basis of the interim reply, the enquiry report was submitted, on the basis of which dismissal order has been passed. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the case of one Tara Chand Pandey, who was Executive Engineer, his dismissal has been set aside on the same ground in Writ Petition No. 1321 (S/B) of 2008. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Kamla Charan Misra v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2009 (27) LCD 130, Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., 2003 (21) LCD 610, Suresh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2008 (26) LCD 461 and Uma Shanker Yadav v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lucknow and Ors. (CM Writ Petition No. 2391 of 1990 decided on May 11, 1992).
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite parties by filing counter affidavit has submitted that opportunity was given to the petitioner but he could not justify that whether any oral enquiry as contemplated under law was held.;