DILIP GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was working as a Clerk in the Judgeship at Gorakhpur has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 7th January, 1992 passed by the learned District Judge, Gorakhpur by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 9th November, 1994 by which the Appeal filed by him for setting aside the order was rejected.
(2.) WHILE the petitioner was working as a Copiest in the Copying Department of the Judgeship, he was charged for misconduct namely that he was absent on 9th May, 1991 and 10th May, 1991 without any sanction of leave and he also remained absent from 11th May, 1991 to 27th May, 1991 without prior permission and without submitting any leave application. The petitioner was also suspended on 25th May, 1991 by order dated 25th May, 1991. The Process Server made an attempt to serve the charge-sheet on the petitioner on 7th July, 1991 but the same could not be served as his wife made a statement that he had gone to the village for agriculture purposes. Another attempt was made by the Process Server on 11th July, 1991 but this time his son Pramod Kumar informed the Process Server that the petitioner had gone either to the Hospital or to the city for consulting some Doctor. On 9th August, 1991 another attempt was made by the Process Server to serve the charge-sheet on the petitioner. This time he met the petitioner who told the Process Server that he would join duty and then receive the charge-sheet. In such circumstances the charge-sheet was published in the newspaper 'Aaj' and the petitioner was required to submit his reply by 13th November, 1991. The petitioner, however, did not submit any reply as a result of which the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry ex-parte and submitted the enquiry report dated 20th November, 1991. He found the first charge that the petitioner had unauthorisedly remained absent on 9lh and 10th May, 1991 proved. He also found the second charge that the petitioner unauthorisedly remained absent from 11th May, 1991 to 27th May, 1991 to be proved. In this connection he noticed that till 27th May, 1991, no leave application was submitted by the petitioner. The Disciplinary Aythority namely the District Judge accepted the enquiry report and directed that a show cause notice be issued to the petitioner. The show cause notice along with the enquiry report were sent to the petitioner by registered post. The endorsement on the envelope made by the Postman indicates that he visited the petitioner's residence on as many as five dates namely 29th November, 1991,30th November, 1991,2nd December, 1991, 3rd December, 1991, and 4th December, 1991 but the same was not received since his family members told the postman that the petitioner was ill and had gone for medical treatment. The show cause notice was ultimately published in the newspaper Aaj on 14th December, 1991. The petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice and by the order dated 7th January, 1992 the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner filed an Appeal which was also rejected.
(3.) I have heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The original records relating to the enquiry and the Appeal have also been produced by Sri S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.;