The penalty of dismissal should be proportionate to the gravity of the charges.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ritu Raj Awasthi learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. K. Upadhyaya learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has assailed the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner on 12. 12. 1989 by the Administrative Officer of U. P. Export Corporation Limited, Lucknow.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Centre Incharge; Carpet Weaving Training Scheme under the Regional Officer of u. P. Export Corporation at Agra. The petitioner was assigned to impart training to the trainees in carpet weaving on 2. 5. 1988. He was attached to the Regional Office of the above said corporation at Agra. The petitioner was relieved on 24. 11. 1988 from the Regional Office and was directed to go to his new place of posting. According to the petitioner, he was not informed about the place of posting where he was required to join. However, the petitioner was later on provided a copy of his posting order issued on 19. 8. 1988, directing the petitioner to join at achchncra Kerawali, Agra. Petitioner went to join at Achchnera but there was no Carpet weaving Centre where he could have assumed charge. The petitioner reported back to the regional Office at Agra on 10. 12. 1988 and sought further directions from the authorities available at Agra and from the Corporations Headquarter at Lucknow. After a long time the petitioner was informed that he was required to join at Agwara in Agra. Since the petitioner had already joined at Regional Office at Agra, he was to be formally relieved from the said office to join at Agwara. The fresh relieving was necessary as the petitioners salary was to be drawn for the period of November and December, 1988 from the Regional Office of the Corporation. Neither the Corporation issued a fresh relieving order nor the salary was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner continued to join his duty at Regional Headquarter, Agra. The petitione was neither allowed to work at Regional Headquarter nor he was given any relieving order to join at agwara. The petitioner under these compelling circumstances could not join at Agwara. The opposite parties placed the petitioner under suspension on 20. 2. 1989 illegally and mala fidely when the petitioner was on medical leave.

( 4 ) A charge-sheet dated 31. 3. 1989 containing the charges relating to non- compliance of the order, absence etc. was issued against him. The petitioner requested the authorities vide letter dated 4. 4. 1989 to supply him the relevant documents but the required documents were not supplied to the petitioner. However, the Deputy Executive vide his letter dated 10. 5. 1989 informed the petitioner that the documents asked for were not available with him. Thus, the petitioner was not supplied with the relevant documents he had submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 16. 9. 1989. The petitioner was not paid his subsistence allowance during the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner denied the charges and sought detailed enquiry and opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner was called to appear on certain dates. During the course of the inquiry, neither the witnesses were examined nor the petitioner was allowed to produce the witnesses in defense. Since all the charges were denied by the petitioner, as such it was mandatory for the Inquiry Officer to get every charge proved against him by recording findings in respect of each of the charges. Thus, without holding a proper departmental enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 12. 12. 1989.

( 5 ) THE petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing, principle of natural justice was violated and the relevant service rules were fragrantly violated. The petitioner was not supplied with the enquiry Officers report on the basis of which he was dismissed. No witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner nor he was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses