ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) WE have heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar as­sisted by Sri Vivek Tiwari for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for.the respondent. We have perused the record of this appeal as well as the writ petition giving rise to this appeal.
(2.) THIS intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judg­ment and order dated 27th May, 2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which order the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the dis­missal order has been dismissed. Brief facts necessary for deciding the issues raised in this appeal are; the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was appointed as Lekhpal on Ist August, 1972. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Registrar Kanoongo on 13th October, 1989. An order was passed by the Tahsildar on 24th January, 1992 directing the petitioner to work as Registrar Kanoongo, Karvi in local ar­rangement as per the approval of the Collector dated 24th January, 1992. Subse­quently, another order was passed on 5th February, 1992 appointing another person as Registrar Kanoongo, Karvi in place of the petitioner against which the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 6851 of 1992 in which writ petition interim order was passed staying the order dated 5th February, 1992. The petitioner thereafter was transferred as Assistant Registrar, Kanoongo to another Tahsil against which order petitioner filed another writ petition in which an interim order was passed staying the transfer order. The petitioner thereafter was allowed to work on the post of Registrar Kanoongo. The petitioner was transferred from Tahsil Karvi to Tahsil Mau by order dated 17th November, 1997. The petitioner neither handed over the charge nor joined at transferred place. On 18th Novem­ber, 1997 the Additional Collector visited the Tahsil and got opened the room where 5, 191 files were found. A detailed report was submitted by Sub-Divisional Officer dated 26th December, 1997 against the petitioner mentioning several charges and various misconducts committed by the petitioner. The Collector de­cided to hold a disciplinary inquiry and a charge-sheet dated 8th January, 1998 containing fifty-three charges was issued to the petitioner. Initially the charge-sheet was not being received by the petitioner and the same could be received by the petitioner only on 30th April, 1998. Along with the charge-sheet copies of the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 26th December, 1997, statement of Vishnu Dutt Tiwari and the report dated 6th November, 1997 of the petitioner in response to the letter by the Sub Divisional Officer asking for certain files were served on the petitioner. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 13th May, 1998 pray­ing for giving of various evidences mentioned in the charge-sheet. A letter was written by Inquiry Officer on 2nd June, 1998 that along with charge-sheet copies of certain evidences had already been sent and with regard to other evidences mentioned in the charge-sheet it was stated that it was not possible to send all the evidences and the petitioner might appear during office day and get the evidences inspected or obtain photo stat copies. The petitioner sent a reply insisting that copies of all the evidences be got served on the petitioner through peon. A letter was written by Inquiry Officer on 21st June, 1998 asking the petitioner to receive the copies of the evidences mentioned in the charge-sheet or inspect the same within a week. The petitioner again wrote a letter praying that Inquiry Officer be changed. The Inquiry Officer sent a detailed letter dated 4th July, 1998 inform­ing that the petitioner in spite of letters had not obtained the copies of the evi­dences from the office. The Inquiry Officer concluded that this indicated that peti­tioner wanted to delay the proceedings. The letter further stated that photo stat copies of the evidences mentioned in the charge-sheet are being sent along with the letters. The evidences with regard to each charge, which were relied, were sent along with the letter dated 4th July, 1998. The said letter mentioned the documents pertaining to each charge. The petitioner wrote a letter admitting that various documents pertaining to various charges had been received but certain documents were still wanting. The petitioner prayed for certain other documents in the letter. The petitioner wrote to the Collector praying for payment of subsis­tence allowance. It was also prayed that Inquiry Officer be changed. Ultimately the petitioner submitted an explanation to the charges vide his reply dated 4th November, 1998. In the letter the petitioner again stated that said reply was only an interim reply and the petitioner would give his final reply after receiving the other documents. It was further stated that the name of witnesses with whom the petitioner had to cross examine would be submitted along with the final reply. The Inquiry Officer after receiving the reply considered the documentary evidences referred to in the charge-sheet and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to various charges, submitted the inquiry report to the Collector dated 20th January, 1999. The disciplinary authority, i.e., the Collector after receiving the inquiry report issued a show cause notice dated 6th March, 1999 to the petitioner along with a copy of the inquiry report asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why major punishment be not awarded. The petitioner submitted a reply to the Collector. The petitioner was heard personally by the Collector on 29th April, 1999 and the Collector after considering the reply of the petitioner found Charge No. 2 partly proved and Charge No. 21 not proved. It was found that for Charge No. 37 the petitioner had already been punished and all other charges were found fully proved. The disciplinary authority held that inquiry report was based on evidences and such indiscipline, irresponsible, negligent and forgoer was not fit to be kept in Government service. By order dated 13th August, 1999 the petitioner was dismissed from service. Against the order of Collector, the petitioner filed the writ petition being Writ Petition No. 38477 of 1999, which after hearing was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 27th May, 2004. The present special appeal has been filed challenging the judg­ment and order passed by learned Single Judge.
(3.) SRI M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of the appeal, made following submissions: (1) Mr. Balkaran Singh, the Inquiry Officer, was himself a witness and could not have been appointed as an Inquiry Officer. He further submitted that despite petitioner's request for changing the Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer was not changed. Mr. Balkaran Singh, the Inquiry Officer was judge in his own cause, hence the entire proceedings are vitiated and are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. (2) The petitioner was not shown the relevant documents, which were mentioned in the charge-sheet and hence there was violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which again has violated the principles of natural justice. (3) The petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance during pendency of the inquiry, which vitiates the entire inquiry proceedings. (4) Learned Single Judge has not considered the submissions raised by the petitioner and has dismissed the writ petition with the observation that in writ jurisdiction question-of facts cannot be examined or adjudicated. ;