Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri N.L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to implead the respondent-State of U.P. as respondent No. 5 in the array of parties. Since all the respondents are the authorities of the State of U.P. and the newly impleaded respondents is also represented by learned Standing Counsel who has already filed counter-affidavit, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties this Court proceed to here this matter finally under the Rules of the Court at this stage since pleadings are complete.

3. Against the order of termination passed by the District Magistrate, Hamirpur on 25.5.1996 and the appellate order dated 24.5.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi rejecting petitioner’s appeal on the ground of delay and laches, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid orders.

4. Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire proceedings are illegal and void ab initio being in utter violation of principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions contained in Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as “CCA Rules”) as applicable in State of U.P. inasmuch as no oral inquiry was ever conducted against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner was initially placed under suspension on 8.9.1994/16.12.1994. A charge sheet was issued to him on 21.12.1994 which was replied by him on 14.8.1995. Inquiry officer after receiving reply did not fix any date for oral inquiry and instead submitted report holding the charges proved against the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.3.1996. Since the copy of the inquiry report was not appended thereto, the petitioner sought copy of the inquiry report by his letter dated 13.4.1996 but the same was not furnished. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 passed order dated 25.5.1996 terminating petitioner from service by way of punishment on the ground of misconduct holding that all the charges levelled against him stand proved. The petitioner preferred appeal on 2.1.1997 which was dismissed on 2.4.1997 on the ground of delay whereagainst he approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 22348 of 1997 which was decided on 8.4.2008 directing appellate authority to reconsider petitioner’s appeal alongwith delay condonation application. However, by means of the impugned order the appellate authority has again dismissed the appeal.

6. In paras 16 and 17 of the writ petition the petitioner has specifically stated that no oral inquiry was ever conducted in the matter though it is so prescribed under the rules and was mandatory.

7. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit. The other facts are admitted. In respect to the question of holding oral inquiry, in para 14 of the counter-affidavit while replying para 16 of 17 of the writ petition the respondents have said:

“14. That the contents of paragraph Nos. 16 to 20 of the writ petition are not admitted. The charge sheet/show cause notice dated 21.12.1994 was given to the petitioner thereby he was required to submit reply stating whether he desires to cross examine any witness mentioned in the charge sheet and whether he desires to give or produce evidence in his support. The petitioner in pursuance of the said show cause notice/charge sheet submitted his reply dated 14.8.1995 and therein, on such request for cross examine any witness or personal hearing was made. This fact is evident from the petitioner’s reply dated 14.8.1995 which is already on record as Annexure CA- 4 to this counter-affidavit. Further, Rule VII of U.P. Government Servant Disciplinary Appeal Rules, 1999 clearly states that a charged Govt. Servant when denies the charges, the Enquiry Officer shall proceed to call witness proposed in the charge sheet and record their oral eviden