Vivek Chaudhary, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
(2.) By order dated 29.12.2001, the petitioner was dismissed from the post of Lekhpal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bilgram, District-Hardoi. In paras-2 and 3 of the writ petition, it is specifically stated that no oral enquiry was hold, no evidence was adduced and the petitioner was not involved in the enquiry in any manner whatsoever. For convenience, paras-2 and 3 of the writ petition are quoted herebelow:- "2.That no date, time and place for holding inquiry, cross-examination from the evidences cited in the charge-sheet, adducing evidence in defence and personal hearing, has been fixed and communicated to the petitioner, nor the petitioner has been informed with regard to the date, time and place for holding inquiry in any manner whatsoever. 3.That it is respectfully submitted here that the orders dismissing the petitioner from service, vide orders contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, has been passed merely on the allegations levelled against the petitioner and without holding the inquiry of any kind and without associating the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. Neither any evidence has been produced in support of the charges nor any witness has been cross-examined nor the petitioner has been associated in any manner whatsoever with the inquiry. The inquiry officer has submitted report merely on the basis of reply of the petitioner without holding inquiry of any kind. The order impugned in the writ petition, has been passed merely on the basis of allegations, without providing the same in any manner whatsoever. It is a case of no inquiry."
(3.) Reply to paras-2 and 3 of the writ petition is made in paras-4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, in which, it is stated that since the petitioner did not seek any opportunity of personal hearing or cross-examine, hence, there is no means to give any personal hearing or cross-examine of evidence. For convenience, paras-4 and 5 of the counter affidavit are quoted herebelow:- "4.That the contents of para-2 of the writ petition as stated are wrong, hence, denied. It is further submitted that the petitioner in his reply dated 23.01.2001 of charge-sheet has not been demanded any opportunity of personal hearing or cross-examine of evidences, as mentioned in the charge-sheet and there is no means to give him any opportunity of personal hearing or cross-examine of evidence. 5.That the contents of para-3 of the writ petition are wrong misconceived, hence, denied. It is further submitted that reply of this contents has been explained in para-4of this counter affidavit which may kindly be seen in reply. It is however, further submitted that the order dated 24.12.2001 was passed by the Up-Ziladhikari, Bilgram after proving the allegations levelled against the petitioner, which is evident from the Annexure No.1 of the writ petition.";