Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Manish Kumar Nigam and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner has filed present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.5.2002, which is the appellate order by which the petitioner has been removed from service and the order dated 22.9.2001 passed by the respondent No. 2 which is the order passed by the disciplinary authority terminating the services of the petitioner.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working in the Department of Sericulture as a Demonstrator. The petitioner was posted at Kanpur Nagar and he was transferred to Bahraich on 22.1.1999.

4. Since the petitioner did not comply with the order of transfer, he was served with the order of suspension on 22.3.2000. The petitioner submitted a reply against the order of suspension and prayed for recalling of the same on 25.3.2000.

5. The order of suspension was not recalled and the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 18.8.2000 in which he was charged with being guilty of indiscipline for not complying with the transfer order. The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet on 29.9.2000 in which the petitioner adopted a stand that the order of transfer was never given to the petitioner. He also raised a plea that his wife was suffering from serious illness and he also offered that at the time of enquiry, the petitioner would produce all relevant evidence in support of his plea.

6. The petitioner has averred in para 9 of the writ petition that after the petitioner submitted his reply on 29.9.2000, he received no further communication. According to the petitioner, he was not given any notice to participate in any enquiry, which was set up against him and also was not given any list of witnesses or the documents, which was to be used against him.

7. On the other hand, the petitioner states that suddenly the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 4.4.2001 stating why the order of suspension should not be confirmed against the petitioner. The petitioner states that a show cause notice dated 4.4.2001 was not accompanied by an enquiry report. However having received the show cause notice dated 4.4.2001, the petitioner submitted his reply on 2.5.2001 and asked for a copy of the enquiry report. The enquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with a letter dated 27.6.2001. An order was passed against the petitioner on 22.9.2001. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the department concerned. The appeal has also been decided against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 24.5.2002.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made threefold submissions. The first submission of the petitioner is that no enquiry was held against him in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 18.8.2000. He has argued that no notice of enquiry was ever given to the petitioner and he never participated in the enquiry. The list of witnesses and list of documents to be used against the petitioner were never supplied to the petitioner. The enquiry report is on record as Annexure 8 to the writ petition.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that from a plain reading of the enquiry report dated 27.6.2001, it is apparent that the petitioner has never actually participated in the enquiry and he has also argued that his contention that list of the witnesses and documents to be used against him were never supplied to him, is also abundantly clear from the enquiry report as the enquiry report does not record any examination or recording of any evidence.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn an attention of the Court to the fact that so called enquiry report records ultimately that the petitioner was guilty of dereliction of duty of disobeying the transfer order and therefore recommended the punishment that the petitioner should be given an adverse entry in his service record and his wage increase fo