- (1.) K. C. Bhargava, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 24-11-1988.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal on 3-1-1971. THEreafter he was placed under suspension on 24-12-1s87 and charge-sheet was issued to him. THE petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 12-7-1988. It is alleged that the Inquiry Officer did not follow the principles of natural justice while conducting the Inquiry. In all five charges were levelled against the petitioner. THE petitioner was not allowed any opportunity during the course of inquiry to produce wit nessed and documentary evidence. The petitioner met with an accident, for which he had to take casual leave w. e. f. 1-1-1988 to 7-1- 1988. As there was no relief he again went to the hospital and remained there from 11-1-1988 to 28-1- 1988. In the accident he sustained fracture of his knee and had to remain on bed upto 21st Juno, 1988 and he used to send medical certificates to the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer has nowhere mentioned in his report that the petitioner did not submit medical certificate. The inquiry report is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It has also been wrongly mentioned that Supervisor Kanungo himself went to serve the suspension order and charge-sheet and the same were refused by the petitioner. At that time the petitioner was in the District Hospital, Pratapgarh. The petitioner was not given any subsistence allowance during pendency of the inquiry right from the date of suspension till the conclusion of inquiry. After the report of the Inquity Officer was submitted, a show-cause notice was issued by the opp. party No. 2 asking the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed. The petitioner submitted his reply stating all the facts. Thereafter the petitioner submitted another reply giving certain facts left out in the earlier explanation. This fact was brought to the notice of opp. pary No. 2 that the observations of the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner refused to give any evidence by writing, was wrong as it was got written by the Inquiry Officer himself on account of the coercion on the pretext that in case he gives in writing the case may be reconsidered. The Induiry Officer had recommended that only one adverse entry should be given to the petitioner, but he has been dismissed from service.
(3.) THE record of the Court shows that counter-affidavit is not on record, even though it was stated by the learned Standing Counsel that the counter-affidavit has been filed. THE Court directed the State counsel to file the counter-affidavit, but no counter-affidavit is on record. THErefore, a copy of the counter-affidavit was taken from the learned State counsel and arguments were concluded. In the counter-affidavit it has been alleged that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on 22- 10-1988. It is wrong to say that he was dismissed by order dated 24-11-1988. The petitioner refused to accept the copy of the dismissal order. Therefore, it was got published in the daily newspaper 'nav Bharat Times, Lucknow' dated 26-10-1988. The petitioner was suspended on account of grave charges. Tahsildar, Patti was appoin ted Inquiry Officer, who submitted the inquiry report. Full opportunity was given to the petitioner, but he produced only one witness Chhotey Lal Yadav and no other witness or document was produced by the peti tioner. The petitioner was going on scooter for his personal work when he' got hurt. He did not apply for casual leave from 1-1-1988 to 7-1-1988. It is wrong to say that he remained on leave during this period. It is admitted that he remained in the hospital from 11-1-1988 to 28-1-1988. It is wrong to say that he was confined to bed upto 21st June, 1988. A copy of the order was sought to be served on the petitioner but he refused to accept the same. The petitioner did not produce any certificate that he did not work anywhere during the period of suspension, therefore, subsistence allowance was not paid, to him. Alongwith the show-cause notice the report of the Inquiry Officer was also given to the petitioner, which he has filed alongwith the writ petition.;