Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rakesh Kumar learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records.

2. The writ petition was filed in the year 1993, challenging the order of punishment of dismissal of petitioner from service and recovery as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

3. As per facts given in the writ petition and submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner while working as Co-operative Kamdar was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.12.1990 and served with a charge-sheet, to which he had submitted reply denying the charges leveled against him.

4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned punishment order has been passed without holding enquiry as neither any witness nor any documentary evidence has been adduced in support of the charges. No oral enquiry has been held as no date, time or place to hold enquiry was fixed and informed to the petitioner.

5. It is submitted that the report dated 29.5.1990 of Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative), report dated 11.12.1990 of Branch Manager, Haiderganj, audit report dated 15.12.1990 of C.O. Audit, papers and files of Society available at the headquarters, preliminary enquiry report dated 20.8.1991, inventory report dated 29.12.1990, available documents and papers of the institution, relevant files available at headquarters, inventory report dated 6.7.1991, records of Branch, Haiderganj, report dated 11.12.1990 of Branch Manager, Haiderganj, report dated 29.6.1990 of Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative), report dated 29.6.1991 of Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative), letters dated 21.9.1990 and 6.10.1990 of U.P.S.S. Branch Manager and records of U.P.S.S. Branch, Faizabad were cited as evidence in the charge-sheet but these evidences have not been proved through any evidence on record inasmuch as no one has been examined to prove these documentary evidences and as a matter of fact, no witness of any kind whatsoever has been produced in support of the charges. These documents have also neither been made available to the petitioner nor copies of the same have been supplied to him despite repeated requests made by him through several letters. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has been deprived of opportunity of cross-examination of the evidences cited and fully described in the charge-sheet.

6. Submission is that the Enquiry Officer merely on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet has submitted the enquiry report which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and established principles of law. The petitioner has been denied proper opportunity of defence in the enquiry proceedings. The impugned punishment order has been passed on the basis of enquiry report and, as such, in the given facts it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that the petitioner was also not provided copy of enquiry report.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments :

(1) Suresh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2008(26) Part-I LCD 461, Para 10.

(2) Parasu Ram Singh v. Secretary of Agriculture, U.P. Lucknow and others, 2008(26) Part-II LCD 1522, Para 6.

(3) Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., 2003(21) LCD 610, Paras 7 and 8.

(4) State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 722, Paras 27, 28, 29, 30, 33 and 34 and

(5) Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588.

8. It is further submitted that this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.2.2012, passed in Writ Petition No. 5542 (SS) of 2009 (Arun Prakash Mishra v. State Cadre Authority, U.P. and others) has held that since the petitioner has been denied to discharge his duties by wholly illegal order of punishment passed by the respondents without even conducting the enquiry properly, as