JUDGMENT

Goutam Bhaduri, J. - The challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 03.01.1991 passed by the Director, Department of Agriculture, M.P., Bhopal wherein the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal dated 31.12.1985 was rejected.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Stenographer on 25.08.1965. Subsequently he was made as Permanent Stenographer with effect from 01.04.1980 by order dated 24.05.1984 (Annexure A-1) and thereafter he was promoted by granting upgraded scale with effect from 18.02.1983 by order dated 07.06.1984 (Annexure A-2). The petitioner was attached to the office of Bilaspur by the Joint Director, Agriculture on 16.11.1984. On 21.05.1985, a charge sheet was issued along-with the list of documents, articles of charges and the list of witnesses vide Annexure A-3. The charge sheet shows that three charges were framed against the petitioner. Charge No.1 was that without any notice/communication or prior sanction, the petitioner used to remain absent from duty. Charge no.2 was that he had disobeyed the orders of higher officials. Charge no.3 was that on 18.10.1984 he had abused the higher officials thereby has committed misconduct. The petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet. Having considered the reply to the charge sheet, the departmental enquiry was conducted. After conducting Departmental Enquiry, the charges were found proved and the petitioner was terminated from service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a gross violation of provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules 1966 (hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules, 1966 ) as the Joint Director who issued the charge sheet has himself acted as Enquiry Officer and the findings so arrived during the departmental enquiry was arrived in a short span and the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing and most importantly the actual date fixed for enquiry was not intimated to him. He further submits that the finding of the Departmental Enquiry was also recorded in cryptic manner and no particulars or reasons have been assigned to show as to how such finding was arrived or recorded which is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, 2018 7 SCC 670 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 2 SCC 772 . Learned counsel further referred to sub-rule (11) of Rule 14 as also sub-rule (23)(i) of Rule 14 of CCA Rules 1966 and would submit that the findings so recorded was so cryptic and there is complete violation of procedure prescribed in Rule 14. Referring to the procedure of departmental enquiry, it is further submitted that the judicial review would be possible in view of the law laid down in Registrar General, High Court of Patna Versus Pandey Gajendra Prasad, 2012 6 SCC 357 and as there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice.

4. Learned State Counsel opposes the arguments of the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner himself failed to appear in departmental enquiry despite the notice given. Consequently, no fault can be attributed to the departmental enquiry and for the conduct of the petitioner, ex-parte enquiry was done. He further submits that looking to the seriousness of the charges, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt and the findings having been arrived in departmental enquiry, principles of natural justice was followed and no interference is therefore warranted. He relies on decisions of the Supreme Court in General Manager(P), Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh, 2010 11 SCC 233 and National Fertilizer Limited Vs. P.K. Khanna, 2005 7 SCC 597 to submit that this Court does not sit in appeal over the finding of the enquiry officer.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. The State was directed to place on record the original file of the departmental enquiry for perusal. So far as the service