Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

Heard Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.03.2001, passed by the Executive Engineer, Sharda Sahayak Khand-28, Haidargarh, District-Barabanki, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that he has produced a forged caste certificate in respect of his caste. The impugned order categorically provides that the charge-sheet dated 11.01.2000 was issued against the petitioner but he did not receive the same and the department tried his level best to serve the charge-sheet upon the petitioner, but to no avail, therefore, the department got the charge-sheet published in the English Newspaper (Pioneer).

3. As per the impugned punishment order dated 29.03.2001, when the petitioner did not turn up to reply the charge-sheet and also did not turn up before the Inquiry Officer, it was presumed that the charge levelled against the petitioner is true and, therefore, his services were dispensed with.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the stand taken by the department regarding service of the charge-sheet upon the petitioner is concerned, it is absolutely misconceived inasmuch as when the petitioner was placed under suspension on 07.09.1999, he filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.572 (S/S) of 2001 before this Hon'ble Court, wherein this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order dated 02.02.2001 granting six weeks' time to the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions with further direction of listing this writ petition. By means of order dated 02.02.2001, this Court was pleased to direct that the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance and if no charge-sheet is served upon the petitioner within a period of one month from the order dated 02.02.2001 the suspension order shall stand revoked.

5. If the stand of the authority concerned is considered to be true, for the sake of argument that they tried to serve the charge-sheet dated 11.01.2001 upon the petitioner but he did not receive the same, it could have been filed before the Court by filing affidavit in Writ Petition No.572 (S/S) of 2001 but no attempt for that was made. It clearly reveals that the authority concerned has not taken steps properly to serve the charge-sheet upon the petitioner. The aforesaid facts may also be seen in the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner served the order dated 02.02.2001 before the authority concerned on 23.02.2001 and it was duly received in the office of the Executive Engineer. The authority concerned could have served the charge-sheet to the petitioner on that date. It appears that the authority concerned was not willing to comply the order of this Court dated 02.02.2001 and despite the charge-sheet having not been served upon the petitioner within stipulated time, the petitioner remained under suspension. This attitude of the authority concerned can't be appreciated.

6. Not only the above, an ex-parte enquiry was concluded against the petitioner on 26.02.2001, as the copy of the original enquiry report was produced before this Court by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Since the enquiry report is dated 26.07.2001 and it has been produced before the Disciplinary Authority later on, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal dated 29.03.2001 within a short span of time without providing a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking explanation as is mandatory under law.

7. The aforesaid facts and circumstances make it crystal clear that this is a case of no enquiry. Even the charge-sheet has not been served upon the petitioner which vitiates the entire departmental enquiry and consequently the impugned punishment order also vitiates.

8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents placed reliance upon the jud