U.K.Dhaon, J. - (1.) Heard Sri U.K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 16.4.1987 by which he was dismissed from service.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that by the order dated 16.10.1985 petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter the charge-sheet was issued which was duly replied by the petitioner and the disciplinary authority on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer has passed the impugned punishment order. Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the copy of inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner nor any show cause of the proposed punishment was issued. He further submits that the impugned order of dismissal was passed in a hasty manner in contravention of the Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of the India.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Maharashtra v. Bhaishankar Avalram Joshi and another, 1970 (20) FLR 289 (SC) , and Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1990 (61) FLR 736.;