Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.

Heard Mr Shafiq Mirza, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Abhai Kumar, Counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority.

2. Petitioner, Syed Mansoor Hasan Rizvi, who was working as Junior Engineer (Civil) was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.11.1999 for committing certain irregularities while being posted at Lucknow Development Authority was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, vide order dated 25th May, 2005 the petitioner was dismissed by the Director, Local Bodies, Lucknow, which has been impugned in the instant writ petition.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 16.2.2000 but the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were never served or supplied to the petitioner despite repeated requests having been made by the petitioner on 20.2.2000, 12.4.2000 and 10.7.2000 to the Inquiry Officer. However, the petitioner tendered his reply denying all the allegations pointing out his innocence, keeping his right reserved to file a detailed reply on the availability of the evidence and the documents relied upon against him in the charge-sheet. After submission of reply dated 21.9.2000 against the charge sheet dated 30.11.1999, no inquiry at all took place and no departmental witness was ever produced or examined to prove the charges. Further, no date or time for inquiry and production of evidence on behalf of the department was ever fixed and informed to the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer and only on the basis of documents, the Inquiry Officer held the charges proved against the petitioner.

4. Elaborating his submission, it has been contended that producing of evidence on behalf of the department against the charge- sheeted person is a condition precedent to proceed with the inquiry. This condition precedent never came in existence and no time or date or place was ever fixed for the said purpose by the Inquiry Officer. However, for the first time a letter dated 23.11.2000 was given to the petitioner requiring him to produce any oral evidence in support of his stand. This oral evidence was to be produced on 29.11.2000 at 11 AM before the Inquiry Officer. From the aforesaid letter it appears that the Inquiry Officer has taken the allegations made in the charge-sheet against the petitioner as proved and that is why the petitioner was required to rebut it by oral evidence. This approach of the Inquiry Officer was contrary to the law and against the principle of natural justice. On 29.3.2001, the petitioner was required to appear before the Inquiry Officer and on that date a show cause notice was issued. It has been clarified that during the period from 30.11.1999 when charge-sheet was issued to the date i.e. 29.3.2001 when show cause notice was issued, no date, time and place was ever fixed for production of evidence by the department in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner.

5. Clarifying the position, it has been submitted that in respect of few charges such as charge nos. 5, 6 and 7, it was found by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner is not responsible for the alleged omission and commission mentioned in the said charges and his superior officers were held responsible for that even then only the petitioner has been made escape-goat and punished. The punishing authority though referred to these findings of the Inquiry Officer in the impugned order but held that the charges stand proved against the petitioner.

6. According the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though there was disagreement in respect of the said charges and the punishing authority had taken a view different than the inquiry officer in respect of the charges. The petitioner was not given any show cause notice by the punishing authority to show cause as to why the findings of the inquiry officer be not accepted and the said charges be