- (1.) P. C. Verma, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal dated 1-11-1991. The ground of challenge by the petitioner in this petition is that the impugned order has been passed by the opposite party on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer which was held ex-pane an despite several requests by the petitioner seeking some more time to sub mit reply. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved because no reply was sub mitted.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to have dealt with each charge and to have examined as to whether the charges were proved on the basis of material on record and an ex-parte finding must not have been recorded. The Enquiry report has been an nexed as Annexure No. CA-8 to the counter-affidavit. A perusal of the enquiry report shows that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. There is no reason for holding the charges proved except that the petitioner did not submit his reply. It is well settled that even an exparte enquiry is held, the Enquiry Officer should have recorded a finding that the char ges are proved on the basis of evidence on record available in support of the charges and then he should have submitted a report. Since this has not been followed by the En quiry Officer, therefore, the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is com pletely in violation of principles of natural justice and the dismissal order passed on the basis of the said enquiry report cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In view of what has been stated above, the dismissal order dated 1-11-1991 is here by set aside and the writ petition is allowed. It will be open for the opposite parties to hold a fresh enquiry in accord ance with law. Petition allowed. .;