The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries and highlighted the entitlement of the employee to subsistence allowance and a fair opportunity to defend himself.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 2. 7. 1991 and a direction for subsistence allowance to the petitioner. In another Writ Petition No. 8827 of 1992 the order dated 10. 1. 1992 and order dated 24. 1. 1992 have been challenged. Heard Sri Krishnaji Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S. S. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the respondent.

( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petitions are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Agriculture Inspector in the year 1968 while posted at Aligarh, the petitioner was suspended and a charge-sheet was served to him on 8. 12. 1988. The petitioner has submitted his reply 27. 1. 1989 (Annexure-1 ). The project officer was appointed as an inquiry officer, who after receiving the explanation of the petitioner, was transferred from district aligarh to another district. After receiving of the reply of the petitioner, no notice was served to the petitioner and no inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer and on 2. 7. 1991, the dismissal order was passed affixing the same at the residence of the petitioner by way of forwarding letter dated 27. 7. 1991. According to the petitioner, no show cause notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner, the ex parte inquiry report dated 1. 8. 1989 was submitted by the inquiry officer and a dismissal order was passed on 2. 7. 1991 which itself reveals that no opportunity was given to the petitioner and merely on the basis of explanation given by the petitioner in response to the charge-sheet dated 8. 12. 1988, the order dated 2. 7. 1991, dismissing the services of the petitioner has been passed. It has further been stated on behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to inquire in respect of the charges levelled against him. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was not paid subsistence allowance with effect from January, 1985 to January, 1988.

( 3 ) THE order of dismissal dated 2. 7. 1991 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 28635 of 1991 and this Court while issuing notice was pleased to stay on 3. 10. 1991 the operation of the dismissal order dated 2. 7. 1991 till further orders.

( 4 ) THE counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents have been filed. According to para 4 of the counter-affidavit, the petitioner was suspended due to absence from duty in the year 1984-85 for which the charge-sheet was served and after conducting the inquiry in accordance with law and the report was submitted where the petitioner was found guilty and the amount of money was said to be embezzled by him. The petitioner was never asked to cross-examine the witnesses nor was asked to produce his defence witnesses during the course of disciplinary proceedings whereby it is established that the charges levelled against the petitioner was true. After the transfer of the former project officer (inquiry officer) Sri U. D. Misra, the subsequent designated inquiry officer has concluded the inquiry after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. According to para 10 of the counter-affidavit, the petitioner was attached with Block development Officer, Jawan, Aligarh, during suspension from service but he did not attend the office of Block Development Officer, Jawan, Aligarh in whole month of July, 1991, as such the termination order was pasted in front door of the petitioners house. After the order dated 3. 10. 1991, the subsequent order in compliance thereto the order dated 10. 1. 1992 was passed vide (Annexure-1) which has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 8827 of 1992. The director of agriculture had taken cognizance of the order dated 3. 10. 1991 passed by this Court in Writ petition No. 28635 of 91 and kept in abeyance the dismissal order dated 2. 7. 1991 in its order dated 10. 1. 1991 indicated that the petitioner shall be given subsistence allowance from the date of dismissal. The counter-affid