Lodha, J. - (1.) ISHAQ Mohammed Bhati a civil servant has filed this writ petition with the following prayer: The order of punishment dated 28.5.1979 may be declared to be invalid and be quashed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner such as salary. In the alternative and without prejudice to aforesaid, if it be considered that such an order cannot be made without the appeal and/or the review petition being decided by the Government, then the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order in appeal and direct the State Government to proceed to consider the appeal and/or review petition of the petitioner within time to -be fixed by the Hon'ble Court and then consider the validity of the order on the order being produced and given the petitioner appropriate relief. Further by an appropriate writ order or direction, even if the aforesaid reliefs are not considered due to the petitioner, then the order of punishment so far it directs that the petitioner shall not be paid the salary for the period of suspension may be declared to be illegal and maybe quashed and the respondents be asked to pay to the petitioner the salary for the period of suspension after deducting the subsistence allowance which has been paid to him. Any other appropriate writ order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case may be issued in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) ON 22.11.75. the petitioner was served with a charge sheet and statement of allegations An enquiry was conducted against him. The petitioner did participate in the enquiry. Ultimately, a show cause notice was given to him on 25 4.78 mentioning that on the basis of enquiry report it is proposed that he should be dismissed from service and therefore, he may show cause why it should not be done. The report of the Enquiry Officer was sent with it. The petitioner gave a reply and supplemented it by a further reply.
(3.) THEREAFTER , some queries were made from the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was asked to present himself before the Registrar on 2.12.78 for personal hearing, because the petitioner had contended before the Registrar that he handed over the charge to Shri Todaram Secretary on 14.6.70, and the Registrar had written a letter to the Joint Registrar to verify the correctness of this statement. Two statements were recorded on 18.12.78 of Fateh Singh and Todaram in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner cross -examined Todaram.;