M. L. Bhat, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was a Lecturer in Kisan Degree College, Basti. He was suspended on 22-3-1981 and was given a charge sheet by one Ram Lakhan Chand, Secretary of the Committee of Management. THE Management appears to have appointed the said Ram Lakhan Chand as enquiry officer and was asked to hold enquiry in the charges levelled against the petitioner. THE petitioner was asked to file a reply to the charge sheet He, however, denied the charges and wanted to file a written statement for which he made a request to the enquiry officer in writing on 13-4- 1981. THE petitioner is said to have made three requests in this letter. He prayed for revocation of the suspension order, secondly, he prayed for permission to inspect the documents and wanted copies of the document, were which the basis of the charges levelled against htm, to enable him to file writtens statement; and thirdly, he preyed for three months' time to file reply. In the aforesaid letter the petitioner had commented on the merits of the charges also and had denied the charges It is contended that it was not a reply to the charge sheet. It was only a request for withdrawal of suspension and for supply of documents.
(2.) THE Enquiry Officer, Sri Ram Lakhan Chand, in his reply dated 18-5-1981 to the letter of the petitioner dated 13-4-1981 informed the petitioner that as enquiry officer he cannot consider the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of his suspension order, the question of withdrawal of suspension was beyond the scope of the enquiry proceedings. In respect of other requests i. e. for inspection and supply of documents and for allowing him to file the reply the enquiry officer conveyed to the petitioner : "..You have given reply to the charge-sheet item wise, it is now futile at this stage, to allow you to inspect the documents mentioned by you in your reply to the charge sheet. Had you not given the reply to the charge sheet item wise. I would have allowed you time for inspection but as the reply to the charge sheet is complete I disallow, at this stage, the inspection of the documents mentioned by you. THE documents forming the basis of charges have already been mentioned in the charge-sheet and in case you wish to look Into any of them even after the submission of your explanation I may permit the same at the time of hearing if 3 written request is made by you within a week of the receipt of this latter.." The petitioner thereafter is sard to have written to the enquiry officer on 5-6-1981 that if he was not allowed inspection of documents. he would aot be able to clear the charges against him, He also submitted a list of 21 persons whom he proposed to examine as witnesses and enlisted some documents which he wanted to be examined He also requested the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry in the college campus in Basti itself. The enquiry officer had decided to conduct the enquiry at his residence at Gorakhpur. However, this letter was not replied by the enquiry officer and the enquiry is said to have proceeded. The petitioner's requests were ignored. On 8-6-1981 the petitioner is said to have written a letter again to the enquiry officer for adjustment of the enquiry and to as a date after summer vacations as most of the defence witnesses were out of station on account of summer vacations. He was also not available for some personal reason. He also made a request for holding the enquiry at Basti. On 26-6-1981 the petitioner is said to have received a letter from |the enquiry officer dated 16-6-1981 in which the enquiry officer had desired the petitioner to appear before him at his residence at Gorakhpur on 25-6-1981. Since the Setter was received after that date, therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to have gone to Gorakhpur on 25-6-1911. However, on 29-6-1981 the petitioner appears to have received another letter from the enquiry officer informing him that the enquiry was adjourned to 12-7-1981. The petitioner is said to have written to the enquiry officer to allow him to inspect certain documents which were relied upon in the charge-sheet and not to hold the enquiry at Gorakhpur. The petitioner is said to have involved in some Criminal case and he apprehended danger to his life, therefore, he made a request to hold the enquiry at Basti because in bis opinion Gorakhpur was not a safe place for the conduct of the enquiry.
(3.) ON 13-7-1981 the petitioner is said to have received a show cause notice dated 23-6-1982. The petitioner was required to show cause within 13 days why ha should not be dismissed from service of the college as per the resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 23-6-1982. ON 24-7 1982 the petitioner requested the Secretary to give an opportunity to the petitioner of personal hearing to explain to the Commutes of Management his ease and requested for a date to be fixed in this regard and he be informed 15 days in advance of such date. The petitioner made a request to the Vice Chancellor also to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. However, a personal hearing was act given to the petitioner. ON 22-9-1982 the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner requested the Vice Chancellor not to grant approval to the decision of the Committee of Management dated 22-9-1982. However. the petitioner received a letter on 8-2-1983 dated 31-1-1983 from the Principal of the College informing him that the Vice Chancellor had already approved the resolution of the Committee of Management dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner was dismissed wish effect from 27-1-1983, The petitioner's representation to the Chancellor under section 68 of the U. P. Universities Act also was dismissed on 12-8-1983, which is also prayed to be quashed. The enquiry is said to have been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was denied an adequate opportunity to defend himself and was refused permission to inspect the documents and was not supplied copies of the documents, on which the charges were based therefore, he was deprived of his right to file effective reply, which would amount to breach of the principles of natural justice and which is against the Statute 17.06 of the University, The order of dismissal therefore, is vitiated. The enquiry officer is said to have been biased to the petitioner. He did not follow the procedure, which was required to be followed. The enquiry report, as also the resolution of the Committee of Management based on the said report, was illegal and void.;