By the Court.—Heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for appellant and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. This intra Court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from judgment and order dated 10.12.2012 passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing appellant’s Writ Petition No. 2927 (SS) of 2009.

3. Petitioner had challenged dismissal order dated 12.5.2005 on various grounds including that no enquiry was conducted against petitioner and even charge-sheet was not served. It has been non suited by learned Single Judge by observing that original record was perused and therefrom it was noted that notice sent to petitioner on 29.3.2004 by process server, who submitted report that petitioner has refused to accept the same. Similarly, a charge-sheet dated 20.5.2004 was issued and sought to be served by special messenger, Sri Ram Lot, Z.O. Staff, Gonda who also reported that on 21.5.2004 when he went to petitioner’s residence he was present but refused to receive the same. Thereafter Enquiry Officer submitted report and dismissal order was passed. Learned Single Judge has held that in view thereof, petitioner himself is responsible for not accepting the documents and cannot complain of non service of documents and hence it cannot be said that no opportunity was given.

4. However, learned counsel for appellant, contended that for the purpose of service of ‘’charge-sheet’ upon a delinquent employee, a specific procedure has been prescribed under Rule 7 (v) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1999”) which reads as under :

“7. Procedure for imposing major penalties ................

(v) The charge-sheet, alongwith the copy of the documentary evidences mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any, shall be served on the charged Government servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records. In case the charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge-sheet shall be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation:

Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charged Government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer.” (emphasis added)

5. In the present case, no oral enquiry has been conducted, since delinquent employee did not submit reply to the charge-sheet and Enquiry Officer directly submitted report hold charges proved and thereafter punishment order was passed. Sri Singh urged that this procedure was patently illegal, in utter violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary to Rules.

6. From the record it is evident that pursuant to order of transfer dated 22.6.2001, appellant Subhash Chandra was relieved from office of Divisional Officer, Lucknow so as to join in office of Superintendent of Police, Intelligence Office, Faizabad. He was relieved on 28.6.2001 from office at Lucknow. However he did not submit joining report at Faizabad till August 2003. He was placed under suspension by order dated 30.8.2003 in a contemplated disciplinary enquiry. Thereafter a charge-sheet was attempted to be served upon petitioner by special messenger but he declined to accept the same. It was also sent by registered post but again appellant refused. Ultimately a show-cause notice was served by pasting at the residence of appellant at House No. 49, Seventh Lane, Nishatganj, Lucknow on 2.3.2005. Since appellant was a peon, procedure for departmental enquiry was governed by Rules 1999. It is said that repeated information was given to petitioner to submit reply to charge-sheet by Enquiry Officer and he fixed 29.5.2004 for oral enquiry but appellant did not appear. Hence Enquiry Officer proceeded with oral enquiry and submitted report on 18.8.2004. Again Enquiry Officer sent a notice dated 1.9.2004 alongwith charge-sheet a