Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on 22.9.1982 and was made permanent in the year 1992. On 17.1.2001, the petitioner was suspended and chargesheeted on the ground of preparing forged bills and vouchers in order to misappropriate the funds of the University. A supplementary chargesheet dated 13.2.2001 was issued and thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the chargesheet on 2.6.2001 denying the charges. It transpires that the enquiry officer called the petitioner on 22.6.2001 and placed a question before him, namely, as to whether he would like to state anything else over and above what he had already stated in his reply. The petitioner submitted that he did not want to state anything further. On recording this statement, it transpires that the enquiry officer submitted a report on 23.6.2001 and on this basis, a show cause notice was issued on 24.8.2001 and thereafter, the Registrar by an order dated 1.10.2001 passed an order dismissing the petitioner from the service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Administrative Committee, which was rejected by an order dated 26.2.2003. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 1.10.2001 and 26.2.2003.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted his reply to the charge sheet and had denied the charges levelled against him. Therefore, it was imperative upon the respondents to conduct an oral enquiry, lead evidence and give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witness, which was not done in the present case, and therefore, the entire procedure adopted by the respondents was violative of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. Further, no charges had been proved by the respondents in the inquiry proceedings.
(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the statement recorded by the petitioner on 22.6.2001, no further enquiry was required to be made and on the basis of the statement recorded by the petitioner, the enquiry report was given and thereafter, the order of dismissal was passed. According to the respondents, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted by the respondents that paragraph 2.06 of the First Statutes of the University of Gorakhpur, did not contemplate an oral enquiry and therefore, there was no infirmity in the order. The respondents further submitted that this Court should not interfere in the findings of fact given in the departmental enquiry nor could this Court re-appreciate the evidence brought on record in a writ jurisdiction.;