MANISH MATHUR,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Aditya Tiwari, holding brief for Sri Apoorva Tewari learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
(2.) The present Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 09.01.1997 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner was appointed in the U.P.State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) on the post of Sales Assistant-cum-Store In-charge and while posted at the Sikarpur Fertiliser Centre, District Bulandshahar, a theft is alleged to have been committed in the go-down of the Corporation in the night intervening 18 and 19 January, 1994 whereafter a first information report was lodged by the petitioner which was registered as Case Crime no.14 of 1994 under Section 380 I.P.C. Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 2.2.1994 in contemplation of departmental enquiry with regard to the alleged theft. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 20.05.1994 containing four charges against him, pertaining to the said incident, charging the petitioner with embezzlement of Rs.57,588.12. The second charge related to concealment of the shortage at the Fertilizer Centre and the third charge related to temporary embezzlement of Rs.1,39,802.66 while the fourth charge related to embezzlement of Rs.57,588.12. The petitioner submitted his reply whereupon enquiry proceedings ensued culminating in the submission of the enquiry report dated 26.04.1995. Upon submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice to which he replied whereafter the impugned termination order has been passed against him.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated due to non-observance of the principle of natural justice since the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard during the enquiry proceedings. It has been submitted that no documentary or oral evidence was adduced in the enquiry proceedings and no subjective satisfaction of the enquiry officer has been recorded with regard to the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sunil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. [Writ Petition No.451(S/B) of 2014].;