Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.U. Ansari, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
(2.) After departmental inquiry, petitioner has been imposed punishment of dismissal by order dated 21.06.2000 whereagainst his appeal has also been rejected as barred by limitation by appellate order dated 27.12.2000 and both these orders are under challenge in this writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that evidence in departmental inquiry was recorded in his absence and petitioner was denied opportunity of cross examination. However, in the punishment order it is mentioned that despite repeated opportunities, petitioner did not participate in the departmental proceedings. The relevant extract of the punishment order in this regard reads as under: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... "The statement of the accused lacks substance because the accused, despite being summoned many a time and all reasonable steps being taken, did not appear before the inquiry officer, nor did he advance his pleas. As the accused did not appear before the inquiry officer, he neither gave his statement nor argued his case, having kept himself deliberately absent; hence, this statement lacks merit." (English Translation by Court);