S.H.A.Raza, J. - (1.) The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the impugned order of dismissal dated 29th October, 1990 contained in Annexure-1 passed by opposite party No. 2 is non-est for the reason of the fact that no inquiry was ever conducted by the Enquiry Officer. After the petitioner has submitted his reply against the charge-sheet, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report. No evidence was ever led against the petitioner nor any person was produced to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner, was not given an opportunity to lead evidence. No body appeared to confirm the reports referred to in the charge-sheet and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It was further submitted that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner either ' before passing of the impugned order of dismissal nor it was furnished alongwith the dismissal order.
(2.) On 14-11-1990 notice of this petition was accepted on behalf of opposite party No. 2 by Sri N. C. Mehrotra. He was directed to get the record of the inquiry.
(3.) On 16-11-1990 the record was produced before this Court. After perusing the same Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. K. Mathur indicated in the order that the record did not show any hearing having been conducted after the reply was submitted. The case was ordered to be listed on 19-11-1990. On 19-11-1990 the parties Counsel argued the case on merits.;