Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.12.2008, by means of which his writ petition challenging the order of his dismissal from service as also the order for recovery of certain amount as arrears of land revenue has been dismissed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner, an employee of the U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in respect of various charges including the charges of financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds. A charge-sheet was issued to the appellant levelling three charges. The appellant was required to furnish his reply to the said charge-sheet, but according to the enquiry report, despite several opportunities being granted he did not prefer to file his reply. This fact has been disputed on behalf of the appellant and it is submitted that the appellant had filed his reply though at a late stage which has not been considered by the enquiry officer. The aforesaid issue is not very relevant for the purposes of consideration of this appeal as we find force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the enquiry officer has held the enquiry without associating the appellant with it and without fixing a date, time and place for holding such enquiry. Apart from this, the enquiry report does not deal with any of the evidence/material, which was found to be sufficient for proving the charges against the appellant.
(3.) CHARGES have to be proved on the basis of material on record. The only finding in the enquiry report in respect of all the three charges is that since the appellant did not furnish any reply to the charges, therefore, it would be presumed that he admitted the charges, and with this observation the enquiry officer found the charges proved against the appellant. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant alongwith the enquiry report, to which he furnished his reply but the appointing authority has not looked into the gross procedural irregularity committed by the enquiry officer nor has addressed itself to the issue as to whether actually charges were proved while passing the orders for dismissal of the appellant from service as well as for recovery of certain amount from him as arrears of land revenue. A further plea has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if any amount was found to be due against the appellant, the same could not have been ordered to be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue and, therefore, this direction of the authority is per se illegal.;