A. P. Singh, J. - (1.) Shri Om Prakash Sharma, an employee of Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd., a Government of U.P. Undertaking has approached this Court for seeking to quash an order of dismissal passed against him on 13-5-93 on the ground of misconduct. A charge-sheet dated 28-12-91 with three charges of misconduct which also involved misappropriation of money and financial irregularity was served on the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his explanation to the charges. In respect of the same charges a first information report was also lodged against the petitioner on 13-11-91. Petitioner was arrested and lodged in jail.The charge-sheet was served on the petitioner while he was in jail. From jail he wrote a letter dated 14-1-92 for grant of time for filing explanation. On the next day i.e. on 15-1-92 he wrote another letter to the respondents intimating them that bail order has been passed for his release and he is be expected to be released from jail soon and since some time will he needed for furnishing bail bonds and, therefore, further two weeks time be allowed for filing the explanation. Explanation, however, was not filed by the petitioner. Petitioner again wrote a letter dated 11-3-92 requesting for grant of further time on account of his father's illness and the time prayed for by the petitioner was again allowed. Again, he did not file the explanation. On 4-6-92 he again wrote a letter requesting for grant of further time which was again allowed but despite time having been allowed on this occasion also no explanation of the charge-sheet was filed. The Enquiry Officer also wrote letters on 20-5-92, 27-5-92, 6-6-92 and lastly on 27-6-92 requiring the petitioner to file his explanation to the charges levelled on him. Despite a long rope given to the petitioner for filing the reply to the charge-sheet petitioner did not submit his explanation on one or the other excuse. He was repeatedly informed that the documents which were mentioned in the charge-sheet by way of evidence had already been tendered to him with the charge-sheet and if he wanted more documents he could come and examine them and on several occasions though petitioner came and examined the documents so as to avoid filing his reply. Where after enquiry was held and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. Enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the appointing authority. According to petitioner he was not given opportunity of showing cause against the proposed punishment as the enquiry report was not given to him nor he was asked to show cause as to why punishment of dismissal from service be not awarded to him. He learnt of the enquiry from news paper report whereupon he demanded service of enquiry report and prayed for its cancellation as enquiry was illegal. However, his protest against ex parte enquiry was not accepted by the appointing authority and the appointing authority passed the impugned order dated 13-5-1993 dismissing the petitioner from service.
(2.) Though several grounds have been raised in the writ petition by the petitioner for attacking the order of his dismissal from service passed by respondent No. 2, however, Shri K. S. Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument on only one point in respect whereof necessary facts have been stated by the petitioner in para 21 of the writ petition. It has been contended by the petitioner that no intimation at all was sent to him by the Enquiry Officer or by the respondents about the date, time and place for holding the enquiry in respect of the charges levelled on him on which he has been dismissed from service and no enquiry was at all held. Para 21 reads as under : "That it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner was not intimated any date of enquiry at any point of time, nor any message was sent nor the enquiry was held and in this matter the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to submit his reply which is against the principle of natural justice. it is also relevant to submit here that even no ex parte enquiry was held nor the charges levelled against the petitioner were got proved orally or documentarily."
(3.) The crux of allegation of paragraph 21 is that petitioner was not intimated about the enquiry proceedings and, therefore, no enquiry was held and thus he was denied of the opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings. This allegation of the petitioner has been replied by respondents in paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit which is sworn by Shri Keshav Prasad, Chief General Manager (Marketing). Para 15 of the counter-affidavit reads as under : "That the contents of para 21 of the writ petition are denied. It is submitted that as far as the charge No. 1 is concerned the petitioner himself admitted vide his letter dated 15-10-1991 addressed to the District Sales, Officer, Hardoi which has been supplied as evidence No. 4 charge No. 1 along with the charge-sheet. For the convenience of the Court the photo copy of the inspection report dated 19-10-1991 and the letter dated 14-10-1991 and 15-10-1991 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. CA-I collectively to the counter-affidavit. And as far as the charge No. 2 is concerned when the petitioner inspite of an assurance did not deposit the money then an FIR to this effect has been lodged and a criminal case is still pending. It is pertinent to mention here that all evidences were the documentary evidences in support of the charges and when the petitioner did not submit the reply of the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer concluded the ex parte enquiry on the basis of the documentary evidence. A number of dates has been fixed by the Enquiry Officer for submitting the reply of the chargesheet but when the petitionerdid not submit the reply, the Enquiry Officer has no option to conclude the ex parte enquiry. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was given the enquiry report along with the show cause notice but he did not make any proper reply of show cause notice. Thus, the petitioner himself did not avail the opportunity which has been given by the corporation following the natural justice.";