R.B.Misra, J. - (1.) In this petition prayer has been made to quash the dismissal order dated 03.03.1997 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 and 4 the appellate order dated 28.4.1997 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 1 and further appellate order dated 26.10.1997 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3, with a further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant teacher at Cantonment Board Boys Primary School, Varanasi with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Heard Sri Sudhir Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Shakti Dhar Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(3.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Cantonment Board Boys Primary School, Varanasi on 13.9.1979 On the charges of dereliction of duty, disobedience, misconduct and in respect of the charge unbecoming a government servant, the petitioner was placed under suspension, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No. 33794 of 1996, which was disposed of on 16.10.1996 with the direction to the respondent to complete the disciplinary inquiry within four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order and with a further direction that the charge-sheet was to be submitted within two weeks and the petitioner was to render full co-operation in the inquiry. A charge-sheet dated 16.11.1996 was issued to the petitioner containing ten charges which was received by the petitioner on 19.11.1996. According to the petitioner as averred in para 6 of the writ petition that the charge-sheet referred and relied upon several letters, complaints and statements of other officiate as documentary evidence besides oral evidence mentioned therein expecting the reply to be given within 15 days by the petitioner, but the documents relied upon and referred in the charge-sheet were not enclosed and furnished to the petitioner along with the charge-sheet and the respondents in reply to para 6 of the writ petition have nowhere indicated in para 7 of the counter affidavit that the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet were enclosed or supplied to the petitioner. According to the petitioner he submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 25.11.1996 denying all the allegations made against him, however, since the documents referred in the charge-sheet since were not furnished to the petitioner, in absence whereof, the petitioner was handicapped in giving the specific reply to those documents and nowhere in para 8 of the counter affidavit the respondents have specifically stated that the documents referred and relied upon in the charge-sheet were supplied to the petitioner, however, in the last paragraph of the charge-sheet dated 16.11.1996 the petitioner was asked to inform the Inquiry Officer as to whether he wanted opportunity of personal hearing before the Inquiry Officer with a further direction to him that in case petitioner wanted to examine or cross examine any witnesses he should indicate in writing the names of the witnesses and also the points on which he wanted the statement of witnesses. The petitioner in his reply no doubt denied charges but did not indicate what specific documents were needed by him. The petitioner neither indicated the documents or records to be inspected nor the detail of witnesses to be examined. The petitioner in his reply wanted that his inquiry should be held before a panel comprising of the President, Vice President and elected members of the Board and without indicating the name of witnesses averred that the statements of witnesses should be recorded without any pressure. The petitioner wanted the proceeding and inquiry to be made confidential where the Executive Officer of the Board was to be kept away from the inquiry and one Sri J. S. Mishra elected member of the Board was requested to keep away from the inquiry to avoid possible influence and Superintendent, Peon and Hira, and Secretary of the Karmchari Sangh were also requested to keep away, however, such request was not found permissible and the petitioner is not expected to make such request and if the Inquiry Officer had not accepted such request of the petitioner, it was not ingenuine and illegal as contended by the respondents.;