Hon’ble Irshad Ali, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.P. Singh and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.3.2016, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while holding the post of Survey Naib Tehsildar was placed under suspension vide order dated 9.3.2015. The petitioner has been served a charge-sheet on 9.3.2015 by the District Magistrate, Unnao leveling certain allegations against the petitioner while he was holding the post of Survey Naib Tehsildar. Petitioner submitted reply on 1.8.2015 denying all the charges levelled against him. Inquiry officer vide letter dated 6.8.2015 required from the petitioner to submit written statement and evidence in support of his claim. In pursuance thereof the petitioner submitted the written statement alongwith evidence on 14.8.2015. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 30.6.2017.

4. The inquiry officer submitted inquiry report on 21.8.2015 wherein two charges leveled against the petitioner were found proved and a show-cause notice alongwith inquiry report was issued to the petitioner on 20.10.2015. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice on 23.1.2016. Thereafter, by means of the impugned order the services of the petitioner has been dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 7 (vii) of U.P Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 full fledge procedure has been prescribed in regard to holding of disciplinary proceeding against the Government servant. The inquiry officer while conducting the inquiry has not followed the procedure prescribed Under Rule 7 (vii) of U.P Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 wherein it has been provided that once an employee has denied the allegations leveled against him the inquiry officer shall fix a date, time and place for providing oral hearing and to cross-examine the witness. In the present case the enquiry officer at no point of time fix date, time and place for oral hearinmg or to cross-examine the witness, therefore, gross violation has been committed by the inquiry officer in holding the inquiry. He further submitted that the inquiry report being ex parte in nature and the order based thereon is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in regard to charge No. 1, has submitted that incorporation of name of Madhu in place of Ramesh Chandra in the revenue record was made under the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 29.6.2002, wherein an order was passed in a suit filed before S.D.M. Therefore, the petitioner has not committed any error in making the said incorporation. Hence, the petitioner cannot be held to be guilty in regard to incorporation made in the revenue records. Second charge against the petitioner is that in a proceeding under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R Act an order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in a suit filed before him and thereafter entries were made in the revenue records, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible for the said entry. He further submitted that in paragraph 15 of the writ petition it has been stated that the rules of principles of natural justice has been violated. Reply of the said averment made in the writ petition has been given in paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit and there is no denial in regard to the averments made in the writ petition. Therefore, violation of rules of principles of natural justice has been admitted by the respondents in the pleadings.

7. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court which are State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, JT 2008 (9) SC 205, Roop Singh Neg