Vivek Chaudhary, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) The petitioner challenges the order of dismissal dated 24.06.2005, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahmoodabad, District-Sitapur. Petitioner claims that the same has been passed without holding any oral enquiry and without giving any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. However, in the inquiry, no oral evidence was taken which was necessarily required to be taken under Rule 7 (vii) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999. The said averment has been made in para-20 of the writ petition, to which vague and evasive reply has been given in para-23 of the counter affidavit and it is not denied that no oral enquiry was made.
(3.) I have also perused the record and impugned order. From perusal thereof, it transpires that impugned order has been passed without holding any oral inquiry.;