- (1.) A punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner pursuant to the resolution dated 12th of October, 1991, which was approved by the Commission by its order dated 8th of June, 1995, which was communicated by communication dated 13th of June, 1995 being Annexure-11 to the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contents that no enquiry report was ever shown to the petitioner neither any copy of the enquiry report was given to him. Therefore, relying on the decision in the case of "Union of India and others Vs. Mohammad Ramjan Khan, 1991(1) S.C.C.588, he contended that the order of punishment cannot be sustained. He further contended that after the reply was submitted by the petitioner on 14th of September, 1991 a report was forwarded to the Committee of Management by the Inquiry Committee on 20th of September, 1991 and the petitioner was asked to appear in the enquiry on 12th of October, 1991 on which date punishment was inflicted. By the resolution inflicting the punishment was forwarded to the Commission for its approval under Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Selection Board Act, 1982. Thus, the case is made in paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of the writ petition, appears to be a case of no enquiry no opportunity. Therefore, according to him the approval granted by the Commission cannot be sustained
(3.) Mr. Vijai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the case of Mohammad Ramjan Khan (supra) was prospective in nature and cannot be attracted in the present case, where the resolution was taken according to decision in Mohd. Ramjan Khan. He also contends that the petitioner had refused to receive the chargesheet and that despite giving opportunity he did not participate in the enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the said order. The writ petition, therefore, be dismised.;