- (1.) V. M. Sahai, J. The petitioner was Lekhpal. He was suspended by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sakaldiha, Varanasi on 6- 12-1989. He had not participated in the meeting held by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 5-12-1989. He was charge-sheeted. The inquiry officer held that the charges were substantialite. Its report was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 30-4-1990 and he dismissed the petitioner from service. The appeal and representation made by the petitioner to Addi tional District Magistrate and Commis sioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi were dismissed. The correctness of these orders has been challenged in this petition.
(2.) I have heard Shri B. N. Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. P. Singh, Standing Counsel appear ing for the respondents. The Counsel for the petitioner ar gued that the order of dismissal is liable to be quashed as the inquiry was contrary to the procedure provided in the rules and the order is against principles if natural justice. The learned Counsel submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate being the complainant, he could not act as punishing authority. Both the submissions appear to be correct. Arjun Choubey v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1356, the Apex Court has held that when I he com plainant and punishing authority are same, the order is contrary to principles of natural justice. It is one of the basic prin ciples of law that one cannot be judge of his own cause. Therefore, the dismissal order which has been affirmed by the respondents cannot be upheld. As regards the second ground, ii is not disputed in the counter-affidavit that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied, therefore, the principle laid down in Union of India v. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 applied. However, since the impugned order are liable to be quashed on the first ground, it is not necessary to say any thing further. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The dismissal order passed by Respondent No. 4 dated 30- 4-1990 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and order dated 21-9-1990 passed by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) as well as order dated 18-12-1990 passed by Respon dent No. 2 (Annexure 11 to the writ peti tion) are hereby quashed. The respondents shall reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits of service, within one months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.
(3.) THERE shall be mo order as to costs. .;