DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, Sri D.P. Sombanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijai Kumar holding brief of Sri B.L. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) FACTS of the case in brief, available on record, are that the petitioner was appointed as Sahyogi in the World Bank Project Division, Lucknow in 1978. Thereafter, he was transferred to U.P. Cooperative Bank Limited, Lucknow on the same post of Sahyogi in 1990. On 10.10.1993, the petitioner was transferred to the Head Office of the U.P. Cooperative Bank Talkatora Branch, Lucknow and on 11.12.1993, he was appointed on the post of Sahyogi in Class IV cadre on the recommendations of the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board against regular vacancy. On account of absence from duty, the petitioner was suspended by order dated 31.5.1997 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition), in contemplation of departmental inquiry.Chargesheet dated 14.7.1997 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition), was served on the petitioner in response to which, he while submitting reply dated 31.7.1997 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition), stated that the period, during which he remained absent from duty, was already condoned and leave had been accepted and medical leave was granted by the competent authority. After receipt of reply of the petitioner, the inquiry officer submitted report. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 31.8.1997 (Annexurre No.9 to the writ petition), was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply dated 13.9.1998 (Annexure No.11 to the writ petition) and after receipt of the reply, by the impugned order dated 19.12.1998 (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition), the petitioner was dismissed from service.
(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned order, the petitioner's counsel raised two fold arguments: (a) since the medical leave was sanctioned by the competent authority for the period of 200 days, the allegation of absence from duty, shall not constitute "misconduct" and (b), the inquiry officer has not recorded any oral evidence nor has given any opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witness nor opportunity to lead evidence in defence coupled with personal hearing was given to the petitioner. Hence the inquiry vitiates because of non-compliance of principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority has also not provided any opportunity of personal hearing.;