R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioner, who is Sales Officer in U.P. Textile Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) at Bhadohi Woolen Ltd., Varanasi, which is a Government undertaking, was suspended on 4-10-1988 and it was on 22-2-1991 that he was served with a charge-sheet, in reply whereof he submitted his explanation immediately thereafter. The Corporation has appointed an Enquiry Officer for conducting departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner made an application before the Enquiring Officer requesting for copies of certain documents and for summoning some witnesses. The Engineering Officer, vide order dated 3-1-1993, rejected that application on the grown that as Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to the proceedings before he has no power to summon the record or witnesses ; but it is open to any of the parties to produce their evidence in support of their case. He however, directed the Corporation to permit the petitioner to inspect the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet as well as other relevant documents. It appears that the petitioner again pressed for copies of the documents and summoning the witnesses and in that connection he relied upon the U.P. Departmental Inquiry (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This prayer was also rejected by the Enquiring Officer by holding that the Act is not applicable to the proceedings. It is against these orders that this writ petition was filed for quashing them and for other relief in connection therewith.
(2.) I disposed of this writ petition in the open court with observation to the effect that the Enquiring Officer may consider the desirability of sending letter of request to those persons, whose evidence he considers to be relevant However, before signing the judgment, thought it proper that this petition should not be disposed of in limine without giving an opportunity to the respondents to file counter-affidavit. The case was accordingly directed to be listed for further hearing and the respondents were given opportunity to file counter-affidavit. Thereafter, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto.
(3.) During the pendency of this writ petition the Enquiring officer has concluded the proceedings and has submitted his report before the management. The management, relying on the said report, has dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 16-3-1993. The petitioner has now moved an application for amending the writ petition so as to challenge the report of the Enquiring Officer and the order of dismissal, passed in pursuance thereof by the management. I have already allowed the amendment application and have permitted the petitioner to challenge the order of his dismissal from service. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the petition is being disposed of accordingly.;