- (1.) D. K. Trivedi, J. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 31-8-94 passed by the Managing Director (U. P. Scheduled Caste, Finance and Development Corporation) Lucknow disagreeing with the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and dismissed the petition on the basis of the charges levelled against the petitioner.
(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner's counsel is that the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. THE Managing Director disagreed with the said report and passed an order of dismissal without giving any show-cause notice or opportunity to the peti tioner. No doubt the Managing Director can disagree with the report of Enquiry Officer but for this it is necessary to give show cause notice or oppor tunity to the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S. C. Mishra, Advocate and perused the impugned order. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appeal's that no oppor tunity has been given to the petitioner by the Managing Director concerned, The O. Ps have also failed to point out anything as to whether any oppor tunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner or not ? In these circum stances and also with the consent of both the parties, I proceed to dispose of this petition finally.
(3.) AS pointed out above, the impugned order has been passed without giving any show-cause notice or opportunity to the petitioner, therefore the impugned order vitiates by the provisions of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order dated 31-8-94 contained in Annexure No. 6 is hereby quashed. However, it will be open to the Managing Director concerned to proceed m accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioner. With these observations, the present writ petition is hereby disposed of finally. Petition disposed of. .;