Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—While serving as Chief Revenue Accountant at District Etawah, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Ten charges were levelled against him vide order dated 16.6.2006. He was called up on to submit his reply to the said charge-sheet within 15 days from the date of receipt of the communication. It was mentioned in the charge-sheet that in case, he wants to examine any witness, the name of said witness be also submitted to the Enquiry Officer.

2. Vide communication dated 7.3.2006 the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to furnish him documents so as to enable him to file a reply to the charge-sheet. The aforesaid communication dated 7.3.2006 gave details of the documents which were sought by the petitioner. The documents sought by the petitioner were in respect of the allegations levelled against him in the charge-sheet. The disability was shown by the petitioner in filing reply in absence of the documents sought to be supplied to him. A reply was sent by the District Magistrate in pursuance of the communication sent by the petitioner dated 7.3.2006 communicating that the documents have been supplied to him. It was replied by the petitioner vide his communication dated 20.3.2006 in which he has clearly stated that no such documents have been supplied to him. It was informed by this communication that in case the request for supplying the documents is rejected, the same may be communicated to him.

3. Vide communication dated 24.3.2006, the petitioner again informed the Enquiry Officer to supply the documents details of which have been mentioned in the letter dated 7.3.2006 and also to provide an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who are likely to be examined in support of the charges levelled against him. Another communication was addressed by the petitioner in which it was again requested to supply the documents sought by him.

4. Having failed to receive any response from the respondents, the petitioner filed an application before the Board of Revenue, U.P. seeking its assistance and direction to the District Magistrate and Enquiry Officer to supply the requisite documents, details of which were given in the letter dated 7.3.2006.

5. While the petitioner was awaiting a response of his communications, the Enquiry Officer went ahead with the enquiry and prepared an ex parte report dated 4.5.2006 and sent the same to appointing authority. This was proceeded by a notice dated 11.5.2006. It was communicated through this notice that the petitioner has not filed his reply to the charge-sheet despite opportunity being granted to him. It was communicated to the petitioner that the documents sought by him were served alongwith the charge-sheet. While submitting his reply, vide communication dated 14.2.2006, the petitioner had denied the allegations levelled against him. He had also sought further documents in relation to the misappropriation of funds by the concerned Revenue officials of the district which were necessary for filing reply to the charge-sheet.

6. The finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer was that the charges were proved against the petitioner, as a result of which, it was proposed to dismiss him from service. He was required to submit his reply to the show-cause notice within a period of 15 days. The respondents after receipt of reply to the charge-sheet served show-cause notice by publishing in the newspaper on 27.5.2006. He was informed that despite efforts notice could not be served upon him, as a result of which, he was required now through this press release to file his reply within seven days. The petitioner in his communication dated 2.6.2006 informed that he was out of station w.e.f. 17th of May 2006 on account of his illness and returned back on 2.6.2006. Immediately thereafter he came to know about the issuance of the press release and sought 15 days time to submit his reply.

7. The respondents acknowledged the communication of the petitioner and