- (1.) HEARD Sri S. K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for respondents.
(2.) BY the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 29-09-1994, passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital by which an adverse entry was made in the character roll of the peti tioner and further integrity certificate has been stopped. Briefly stated, the petitioner was head Moharir at the relevant time at P. S. Haldwani. In pursuance of the oc currence taken place on 12/13 Decem ber, 1993 regarding illegal selling of rrees, FIR was lodged as case crime no. 112/fd/ 93-94. The petitioner thereaf ter, was suspended on the ground of negligence in duty vide order dated 30-12-1993. The Senior Superintendent of Police, issued notice as to why adverse entry may not be made into his char acter roll. Petitioner has filed his writ ten reply. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital after full fledged inquiry came to the conclusion that there ex isted no evidence against the petitioner and on the basis of adverse entry in the character roll, further increment was stopped. Petitioner against the said punishment preferred an appeal before DIG, Kumaon Range. However, on 25-01-1996 sus pension order was revoked. According to the submission of the petitioner ap peal filed by the petitioner was heard exparte. According to him even during the inquiry proceeding, he was not af forded any opportunity for cross exami nation of the witnesses and the state ments were not recorded in his pres ence. Even the copy of the enquiry re port was not supplied to the petitioner.
(3.) A perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 14-07-1994 peti tioner was given a show cause notice on 12-08-1994. The petitioner has re plied and ultimately on 29-09-1994, the order was passed awarding the pun ishment against the petitioner. The rel evant punishment order is as under: Hindi A perusal of the record shows that during the proceedings of the in quiry petitioner was not present and as such, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is wholly exparte and even from the order passed by the punishing authority it is fully established that he has been punished on the ground of suspicion alone.;