Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Seenchpal in the irrigation department. He joined his services in the office of the Executive Engineer, Muzaffarnagar Division, Ganga Canal, Muzaffarnagar with effect from 18.1.1969. The petitioner alleges that on account of his trade union activities, one Prem Pal Sharma filed a number of complaints against him to the effect that he was responsible for causing revenue loss to the department in 1394 fasli. Copies of these reports have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition. Enquiries were initiated against the petitioner in the complaints at various levels by the Assistant Engineer-II/Sub-Divisional Officer-II and the Deputy Revenue Officer-II/Ziledar Kotwal. They vide their reports dated 29.1.1988 and 2.2.1988 respectively found the complaints baseless and unfounded. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, Muzaffarnagar Division Ganga Canal, Muzaffarnagar, respon-dent No. 2 also made enquiries at his own level and recorded a note that complaints against the petitioner were result of personal vendatta with Prem Pal Sharma. Copy of the said note dated 3.2.1988 is appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It appears that Prem Pal Sharma was not satisfied and he again moved another application before respondent No. 2, inter alia, stating that he was not satisfied with the findings recorded in the reports dated 29.1.1988 and 2.2.1988 and the note by respondent No. 2 dated 3.2.1988. Conceding to the demand of Prem Pal Sharma, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 15.4.1988 directed the Deputy Revenue Officer-III to again hold enquiry. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 also promoted the petitioner from the post of Seenchpal to the post of Amin, i.e., Sinchai Parvekshak, vide order dated 30.6.1988. The petitioner by letter dated 1.9.1988 was informed that the Deputy Revenue Officer-III has been appointed as inquiry officer and he may submit his explanation on any working day. The petitioner by letter dated 1.9.1988 informed that he has not been served with any charge-sheet, therefore, he can neither submit any explanation nor face the enquiry.
(3.) THE Deputy Revenue Officer-III submitted his report dated 5.9.1988 after concluding ex parte enquiry, finding charges proved against three persons, namely (1) Sita Ram, Consolidation Amin, (2) Kalu Ram, Seenchpal and (3) petitioner Sushil Kumar, Sinchai Parvekshak. The petitioner was thereafter served with a charge-sheet by the Sub-Divisional Officer-III Shri A. B. Pathak on the basis of the ex parte enquiry report dated 5.9.1988 but no papers were given to the petitioner along with the charge-sheet dated 17.4.1989 on which the department relied upon, hence the petitioner requested the inquiry officer, vide letter dated 25.4.1989 to give copies of all the documents. The petitioner also submitted his objection and explanation to the charge-sheet, vide reply dated 14.9.1989 specifically asserting that he may be permitted to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and also to permit to give him oral evidence and personal explanation, but no opportunity was given to the petitioner and he was not permitted even to cross-examine the witnesses of the management and enquiry officer submitted report.;