By the Court.—Heard Shri R.P. Tiwari learned counsel in support of this writ petition and learned Standing Counsel who appears for the respondents.

2. Prayer in this petition is for quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2009 delivered to the petitioner on 17.12.2009 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) passed by the State Government by which the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner has been concluded by giving two directions i.e. (i) recovery of a particular amount by way of suit; (ii) deductions from the pensionary benefit to the tune of 10%.

3. As pleadings inter se parties are exchanged, both side requested for the hearing and decision and, thus, we have heard the matter.

For disposal of the writ petition, facts in brief will suffice.

4. Petitioner was in service in the Public Works Department and on 31.1.2006 he retired from the post of Executive Engineer. During the entire service period, the petitioner claims, that he was neither charge-sheeted nor any complaint against him ever came. It is only vide letter dated 5.5.2008, the petitioner was informed that pursuant to the order dated 6.6.2006, disciplinary proceedings against him has been initiated under C.S.R. Rule 351(A) and the Chief Engineer P.W.D. Kanpur was appointed as an enquiry officer. Enquiry Officer submitted its report on 18.3.2008 by which the petitioner was called upon to file objection which he filed, and it is thereafter, by the impugned order dated 26.11.2009, punishment was awarded to the petitioner, upon which this petition.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that besides challenging various charges on merit, the challenge is the entire enquiry proceedings and report submitted by the Enquiry Officer being in violation of principle of natural justice. It is submitted that neither any date, place and time of enquiry, has been fixed nor the petitioner has been provided the relevant document so asked for by him nor he has been given reasonable opportunity to file reply and evidence in support of his version.

6. Argument is that apart from some earlier letters written by the Enquiry Officer, he wrote a letter to the petitioner on 25.2.2008 granting one week’s time to file reply and evidence but that letter was dispatched to the petitioner on 14.3.2008 which he received on 19.3.2008 but the Eqnuiry Officer had already submitted report on 18.3.2008 and, therefore, it is a case of lack of opportunity to file reply/ evidence, lack of opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings, lack of opportunity to meet out the evidence if any collected by the Enquiry Officer.

7. It is pointed out that the Enquiry Officer has not recorded any evidence and no witness was examined under intimation to the petitioner so as to have an opportunity to meet the facts and cross-examine them.

8. It is then submitted that even from the report of the Enquiry Officer it is clear that he has submitted a report solely on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted any reply and papers in support of his defence. It was then submitted that irrespective of non filing of response/participation of the petitioner, even if the enquiry officer was to proceed with ex parte enquiry, he was supposed to collect oral and documentary evidence in respect of the charges and thus, the report of the enquiry officer which states that on account of non filing of response and evidence, charges against the petitioner will be deemed to have been proved automatically, is totally erroneous and wrong approach and, thus, by placing reliance on that report, impugned order of punishment is liable to be quashed. Hence the petitioner is liable to be provided an opportunity to file objection to the charges as stated in the charge-sheet and otherwise to led evidence by giving him opportunity to participate in the fresh enquiry proceedings in accordance with law.

9. In response to the aforesaid, learned Standing Counsel submits that time and again letter was written to the