( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. M. B. Gandhi for petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Paresh Upadhyay appearing on behalf of respondent.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the present petition are as under. 2. 1 on 1. 2. 1984 the petitioner was directly recruited as Head Clerk with the respondent. From 17. 6. 1998 to 8. 2. 1999, the petitioner was in charge of the post of Chief Officer. On 8. 2. 1999, Mr. D. B. Mehta was appointed as the Administrator of Dholka Nagar Palika. On 6. 4. 1999, the petitioner was suspended by the respondent-Administrator and on 27. 5. 1999, a chargesheet was given to the petitioner on various allegations. According to the petitioner, as no documents referred to in the chargesheet were given to the petitioner, he wrote a letter to the respondent calling certain documents by letter dated 1. 6. 1999. Even in inquiry proceedings also, he was not permitted to engage an Advocate. Thereafter on 9. 6. 1999, reply to the application dated 1. 6. 1999 was given by the respondent and necessary documents were furnished to the petitioner as per the chargesheet. On 17. 6. 1999, petitioner submitted the written statement to the chargesheet. On 24. 6. 1999, the Administrator wrote a letter that written statement of the petitioner is not acceptable and the order dated 1. 7. 1999 for payment of suspension allowance was passed and on 8. 10. 1999, inquiry officer has submitted the report to the petitioner to which the petitioner gave reply on 15. 10. 1999. The order of dismissal has been passed by the Administrator. Page 28 (Annexure-A) is the suspension order passed by the Administrator against the petitioner and page 31 is the chargesheet dated 27. 5. 1999. The chargesheet is issued by the Administrator of respondent Nagarpalika. A letter was written by the petitioner demanding certain documents which were supplied to the petitioner on 9. 6. 1999. Page 50 is the statement of recovery of Nagarpalika tax and page 51 is also for the same for different period about the tax amount. Page 52 is also the statement of amount of tax recovered during the subsequent period. Page 65 to 84 is a reply submitted by the petitioner against the chargesheet. Page 85 is the reply which was given by the petitioner but was not accepted by the Administrator of respondent Nagarpalika.

( 3 ) IT is necessary to note at this stage that chargesheet though served to the petitioner was replied by him without any inquiry in respect of chargesheet. Till the date of receiving the reply from the petitioner, the Administrator of the respondent Nagarpalika has come to the conclusion that on the basis of documentary evidence the reply submitted by the petitioner is not accepted. As to on what reason or ground the reply has not been accepted is not mentioned in the said letter which is at page 85. What would be the effect of not accepting the reply prior to the stage of inquiry is a different question which is required to be considered. It may suggest the predetermined mind of the Administrator of the respondent Nagarpalika because while taking the decision not to accept the reply, no inquiry was held against the petitioner. The request to engage an Advocate has been rejected. As per page 88, an order has been passed on 1. 7. 1999 for the payment of suspension allowance to the petitioner. The important document is at page 90, which is an inquiry report of Mamlatdar dated 8. 10. 1999, who was inquiry officer. The inquiry officer has given finding in respect to each charge. It is necessary to note at this stage that no witnesses have been examined by the presenting officer on behalf of the respondent Nagarpalika before the inquiry office to prove the charge against the petitioner. The whole report of inquiry is based on documents which have been scrutinised by the inquiry officer on the basis of documents and replies which were submitted by the petitioner. Except that, there is no other discussion about any evidence wherein the relevant documents have