R.R.K.TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Con ­stitution of India, challenging the order dated 27 6 1990 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition), served on petitioner on 13 8 1990, by which petitioner has been dis ­missed from service.
(2.) THE facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that petitioner Murlidhar Srivastava was serving as Assistant En ­gineer in Irrigation Department of State of Uttar Pradesh. He was served a memo of charges dated 20 10 1987 with regard to charge of misconduct allegedly committed by him during the period 1 11 1982 to 10 7 1983 while he was posted as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Division, Gonda, at Bahraich. The charge memo contained 15 charges. Evidence relied on in support of each charge was mentioned in the memo of charge. In the last para ­graph of the memo of charge petitioner was required to indicate in writing whether he wanted to appear and examine himself orally. If he wants to examine or cross examine. any witness, then specify the names of such witnesses alongwith their addresses in the written statement. It would be appropriate to reproduce the last paragraph of the charge memo for correct appreciation : hindi matter 302 page no.. Petitioner submitted his written statement to the charges on 23 4 1988 alongwith which he also filed the documentary evidence considered neces ­sary by him for his defence. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 14 6 1988. Respondent No. 1, thereafter, considered the entire material against the petitioner and proposed punishment of dismissal against him for which concur ­rence was given by U.P. Public Service Commission, vide letter No. 473/6/A.D.C./S 7/89 90, dated 25 5 1990. After receiv ­ing concurrence of the Commission, respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 27 6 1990 dismissing the petitioner from service which has been challenged in this petition.
(3.) WE have heard Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for petitioner and learned Standing counsel for respondents. The challenge raised on behalf of the petitioner against the impugned order is confined to the solitary ground that petitioner was not afforded adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing as required under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India before passing the impugned order. The submission of .the learned Counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has not been given opportunity to cross examine any witness nor was he allowed opportunity to examine his defence witnesses. The requirement of reasonable opportunity of being heard contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution before passing the order of dismissal cannot be said to have been satis ­fied merely by allowing opportunity of submitting explanation and thereafter passing the order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on the following cases: (1) Union of India v. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 582. (2) Khem Chand \. Union of India and others, AIR 1958 SC 300. (3) Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1963 SC 395. (4) State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, 1975 (1)SCC155. (5) Town Area Committee Jalalabad v. JagdishPrasad and others, AIR 1978SC 1407. (6) Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 SCC (L&S) 998. (7) State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru K.V. Perumal and others, AIR 19 96 SC2474. ;