Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
(2.) THROUGH the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.7.1990, removing the petitioner from service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Cooperative Inspector Grade I at Gonda. In connection with some charges, he was suspended on 8.3.1978 and a charge-sheet dated 17.10.1979, containing 13 charges was served on him. The petitioner was not provided with the relevant documents, as such he could not give a reply to the charge-sheet. A show cause notice had also been issued against the petitioner. On the basis of the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner was awarded a major penalty of removal from service on 15.11.1980. This order was assailed by the petitioner by filing a W.P. No. 3972 of 1980. This Court had quashed the order dated 15.11.1980 and had given the liberty to the opposite parties to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner was directed to appear before the appointing authority on 7.10.1988 to take further orders, if any. Accordingly, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P. had decided to hold de novo inquiry against the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 55 of C.C.A. Rules. A formal order was passed on 2.12.1988 by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for initiating the inquiry and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P., Meerut was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the formal regular inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner was treated under suspension and attached in the office of District Assistant Registrar, Gonda. The petitioner was directed by the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 8.12.1988 to take part in the inquiry and submit his reply to the charge-sheet.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not supplied with the documents despite repeated requests and was also not allowed opportunity of hearing. The Inquiry Officer thus had not afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He was not paid subsistence allowance regularly, However, some payment was made but it was in the old pay scale. The petitioner's request for supply of the documents and inspection of the record was turned down by the Inquiry Officer. No show cause notice nor any inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and suddenly the order of removal was passed against the petitioner on 5.7.1990. The findings are erroneous. The order of removal is a non-speaking order. In fact all the charges were unfounded. The provisions contained in the C.C.A. Rules and in Article 311 of the Constitution of India, have been flagrantly violated by the opposite parties. The learned standing counsel has opposed the writ petition. It has been submitted that a fresh departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was sent several letters, allowing him opportunity of inspecting the documents. The documents were also supplied and subsistence allowance was paid to him in accordance with the relevant rules. The petitioner has received 33 copies of the documents on 19.4.1989. A deadline of 31.5.1989 was fixed for submission of his reply. The petitioner was kept informed of all the dates fixed by the Inquiry Officer. In fact the petitioner had not cooperated with the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was afforded opportunity of personal hearing and after completing the departmental trial the order dated 5.7.1990, awarding penalty of removal from service was issued against the petitioner.;