R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioner, who claims to be a Consolidation Lekhpal in the service of Government of U.P., was suspended and thereafter he was served with the charge-sheet and was called upon to submit his reply within the time specified therein. Although petitioner did not submit has explanation reply but he asked for copies of certain papers. The Enquiry Officer directed him to inspect those papers. In-spite of the above order neither the papers were inspected nor did he submit his explanation in reply to the charge-sheet. As, in-spite of the opportunity having been given to him, petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings, Enquiry Officer conducted the ex parte enquiry and submitted a report on 28-6-1989 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The appointing authority, after giving show-cause notice to the petitioner agreed with the enquiry report and removed him from service, holding that charges against the petitioner have been proved. He thereafter filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal which has also been dismissed vide order dated 20-3-1991. It is against the above orders that this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) While dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner the Tribunal has recorded findings in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of its order which are reproduced below : "After going through the relevant records as well as the written arguments filed by the parties, we find that the petitioner did not cooperate with the enquiry officer during the enquiry. The petitioner was suspended by an order dated 16th December, 1986 and thereafter charge-sheet was issued to him but he did not file his reply even when he was allowed to inspect the relevant records The petitioner conn clod that he was suspended without any preliminary enquiry and therefore, his suspension order was illegal. We are the opinion that it is not necessary to conduct preliminary enquiry before suspension all the time The matter will depends on the situation. In the present case, the petitioner was transferred and he used political influence to get the stay of the transfer order. Even when the transfer was stayed and he was asked to do his duty, the petitioner did not do work and absconded. He was also involved in a police case and was arrested. All these are facts which did not require any preliminary enquiry to establish. We, therefore, hold that the suspension order dated 16th December, 1986 was a valid order. It had further been stated by the counsel of the petitioner that the enquiry took more than six months and therefore, it was vitiated. It is apparent that the petitioner did not cooperate with the opposite parties and this was the reason why the enquiry took too much time. The delay was mainly for the petitioner and the opposite parties had nothing to do. We therefore, do not give any weight to petitioners arguments. It has been argued or. behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of removal from service dated 15th January, 1990 was a non-speaking order and hence it should be quashed. After going through the records, we find that the impugned order of removal is surely a short order, but short order is not always an illegal order. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice on August 7, 1989 which is available as Annexure No. "B" to the CA/WS filed on 10-8-1990. In this show-cause notice, the details of the case enumerated. The petitioner never reply to this show-cause notice. Then show-cause notice was clear and complete, the petitioner could not charge the removal order as non-speaking and illegal The opposite parties allowed time to the petitioner for submitting replies to the show-cause notice and charge-sheet but the petitioner submitted it. Still is was argued on behalf of the petitioner that he was not given opportunity to file the reply of the show-cause notice. This is wrong. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the enquiry was done ex parte and the personal hearing was not allowed to the petitioner. Personal hearing is allowed when the petitioner asked for this. In the present case the petitioner did not ask for this and, therefore, there was no question of personal hearing. Secondly, the petitioner himself did not cooperate during the enquiry and it obvious that the opposite parties should conduct the enquiry ex parte. He had to prove their case against the petitioner and the ex parte enquiry was the only procedure. The petitioner did not take part in the enquiry proceedings. We are, therefore, do not find any force in the claim petition filed on 10-12-1987 and amended on 14-10-1988. The impugned order of suspension dated 16-12-1988 available as Annexure No. 1 to this claim petition was a valid order, we do not like to interfere with it, In the same way we do not find reason in the claim petition filed on 24-4-1990. The impugned order of 15-1-1990 available as Annexure No. 1 to the claim petition was a valid order which should not be interfered with."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions in support of the writ petition, namely, (1) petitioner was not given any opportunity by the enquiry officer to cross-examine the witnesses and there was thus violation of Principles of Natural Justice, and (2) the order of termination is not a Speaking Order.;