Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel and perused the records. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.12.2001 by which the petitioner while working on the post of Collection Amin has been dismissed from the service after holding disciplinary proceedings.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was neither provided relevant documents demanded by him for submission of reply to the charge sheet nor any date, time or place was fixed by the Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry. It is also submitted that even the charge sheet was not served upon the petitioner and the entire enquiry proceedings were held ex parte in the absence of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not provided with the enquiry report and the opportunity to rebut the findings recorded in the enquiry report. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in order to emphasize his submissions submitted that from the perusal of the impugned order itself, it is very much clear that the enquiry report was sent along with certain documents demanded by the petitioner as well as the report of Naib Tehsildar, Shahganj dated 30.10.2000 and the report of the Deputy Collector, Bikapur dated 13.11.2000 for service on the petitioner, but the same was not served on the petitioner.
(3.) IT is also submitted that from the perusal of the order impugned, it is very much clear that the relevant records demanded by the petitioner were supplied along with the enquiry report, meaning thereby that the enquiry proceedings were completed and thereafter the opposite parties had sent the said relevant records to the petitioner, which itself indicates that the petitioner was not provided opportunity to properly defend himself in the so called enquiry proceedings.;