Hon’ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard Sri Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sriniwas Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 9.10.2012 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Maholi, District Sitapur whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 11.8.2016 passed by the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Maholi, District Sitapur whereby the statutory appeal of the petitioner which was preferred against the dismissal order dated 9.10.2012 has been rejected.

3. The main ground to impeach the aforesaid impugned orders is that no proper regular inquiry was conducted before imposing major punishment of dismissal inasmuch as Inquiry Officer did not fix any date, time or place for adducing evidence to prove the charge against the delinquent employee before the Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Officer proceeded as if the charges stand proved as levelled in the charge-sheet and it is for the delinquent employee to disprove the same.

4. In order to appreciate the short, legal controversy involved in the writ petition, it may not be necessary to set out the factual controversy involved in the case in detail and only narration of few facts to appreciate the legal question arising in the case would suffice for the disposal of this writ petition.

5. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of ‘Peon’ in Nagar Panchayat, Maholi, Sitapur on 31.1.1996 on compassionate basis in place of his father who died on 20.8.1994.

6. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Maholi issued an order dated 15.5.2012 placing the petitioner under suspension on the charge that on 15.5.2012 the petitioner, in a drunken condition, used abusive language and made obstruction in the official work.

7. As per the petitioner, the order of suspension was issued without being issued the charge-sheet, therefore, the said suspension order was illegal. The petitioner assailed the suspension order dated 5.5.2012 by filing Writ Petition No. 3206(S/S) of 2012 which was finally disposed of vide order dated 13.6.2012 directing the authority concerned to issue charge-sheet and complete inquiry within the stipulated time.

8. The Executive Officer issued charge-sheet on 3.7.2012 levelling two charges against the petitioner. The first charge reads that the petitioner comes on duty after having liquor and second charge reads that petitioner often remains absent without seeking permission to that effect. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 16.7.2012 denying both the charges. Petitioner has submitted that he has been falsely implicated.

9. As per petitioner’s counsel, the Inquiry Officer did not conduct the departmental inquiry strictly as per Rule 5(1) of the U.P. Municipal Boards Servants (Inquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service) Rules. The aforesaid Rules came into force vide Municipal Notification No. 1619-F/XI-A-14-53, dated April 8, 1960, published in U.P. Gazette, P.T. III, dated April 16, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The petitioner further submitted that the department did not prove the charges levelled against him in the inquiry as no oral inquiry was conducted but vide letter dated 28.8.2012 issued by the Inquiry Officer required the petitioner to present his stand in respect of the charges. In respect thereto the petitioner submitted his written statement on 5.9.2012 to the Inquiry Officer.

10. The Executive Officer thereafter issued a show-cause notice on 13.9.2012 enclosing therewith a findings of Inquiry Officer dated 7.9.2012 and the petitioner submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice on 24.9.2012 denying the allegations levelled against him. The petitioner categorically submitted in his explanation that no medical examination regarding the charge of taking liquor was done, therefore, the said charge may not be accepted.

11. The Executive Office