Hon’ble Virendra Kumar-II, J.—Heard Mr. Shesh Nath Bhardwaj, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner assailing judgment and order dated 31.8.2016 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) dismissing Claim Petition No. 2248 of 2010 and orders dated 7.8.2009 passed by respondent No. 3, 30.12.2009 passed by respondent No. 4 and order dated 19.6.2010 passed by respondent No. 3.

3. It is pleaded in the grounds of writ petition that the petitioner was appointed on the post of ‘Constable’ in the year 1998. When the petitioner was posted on 17.4.2008 at district Sitapur. He went to his home town alongwith his family. Due to certain adverse family circumstances in which the petitioner was evicted from his house. His household items were kept in a room, where his elder brother resided. Consequently, family partition took place and accordingly the petitioner brought all these articles to his government house/accommodation. The petitioner could not report on his duties and he joined the duties on 21.5.2008. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 16.5.2008 passed by respondent No. 5.

4. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by Dal Nayak, C Dal, Dewetiey Vahini, P.A.C., Sitapur. The petitioner was held guilty. The Inquiry Officer recorded finding that there was no chance of improvement of the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer in his preliminary inquiry report dated 24.5.2008 had not discussed problem explained by the petitioner due to which he remained absent. The Inquiry Officer ignoring his explanation recorded finding that the petitioner was habitual of absenting himself and indisciplined as he has been earlier awarded punishment. The petitioner further pleaded that during course of preliminary inquiry, the copies of the statements of witnesses were not supplied to him nor any witness was examined in his presence. The petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witness. He was never called upon during course of inquiry so that he could not put his version during the course of inquiry. The petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing although the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the inquiry officer.

5. It is further contended by the petitioner that he had in his explanation mentioned the name of witness Sri Ajay Munshi Ji, Chairman Nagar Palika and Sri Pradeep Kumar Swarnkar, who were not examined by the inquiry officer. No independent witness was examined to prove the version of the petitioner incorrect. The inquiry officer relied upon the statement of persons, who were the personnel of the department, therefore the preliminary inquiry is bad in the eyes of law. It is mentioned in the grounds of writ petition that on the basis of preliminary report dated 24.5.2008, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a charge-sheet dated 5.6.2008 was served upon him. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 25.6.2008 against the charge-sheet served upon him.

6. The perusal of aforesaid charge-sheet itself reveals that apart from the charge of absence from duty for about 35 days w.e.f. 17.4.2008, there is another charge of being habitual of remaining absent from the duty as well as of indiscipline, which was not permissible during the departmental proceedings against him. The petitioner has further contended that during course of departmental inquiry, the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing. Neither any witness was examined in presence of the petitioner nor the copies of the statement of witnesses were supplied to him. The witnesses mentioned in his explanation to the charge-sheet were not examined. The Inquiry Officer relied upon the statements of the persons, who were the personnel of the department. The petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witness at all and he was never called upon durin