JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This Writ Petition is directed against an order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Lucknow dismissing the petitioner from service and directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,34,369.52. The said order has been affirmed in Appeal by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.01.2016. The appellate order is also under challenge.

2. Parties have exchanged affidavits.

3. Admit.

4. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sushil Kumar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

5. The petitioner was a Technical Officer posted at the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Centre, District Allahabad. He was a permanent employee of the Corporation. The petitioner was to superannuate from service of the Corporation on 30.06.2015 upon attaining the age of 60 years. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner on 15.07.2014 on allegation of causing loss of ricestock at the Ghazipur Centre of the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) during the period of 2003-2004 and 2009- 2010. An Inquiry Officer was appointed on 15.07.2014 and a letter was issued to the petitioner on 26.05.2015 by the Inquiry Officer, wherein the petitioner was directed to submit a reply to a charge-sheet dated 01.09.2014 and attend before the Inquiry Officer on 8.06.2015 at 3:00 p.m.

6. It is the petitioner's case that he was not served with a copy of the charge-sheet and, therefore, it was not possible for him to submit a reply.

7. Attending at the inquiry would not, according to the petitioner, serve any purpose. The petitioner after receiving the letter dated 26.05.2015 from the Inquiry Officer informed the Deputy Manager, Finance about the non-service of charge-sheet dated 01.09.2014. The Deputy Manager, Finance directed the Inquiry Officer to ensure service of the charge-sheet upon the petitioner. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet under a letter of the Inquiry Officer dated 28.05.2015. It is the petitioner's case that without a copy of the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted a reply of sorts dated 28.05.2015, where the stand taken was that copies of the charge-sheet and the documents, that were proposed to be produced against him in evidence, had not been served. The petitioner asserts that he was in a helpless position because he was scheduled to retire on 30.06.2015 and the charge-sheet was served upon him on 2.06.2015, along with the letter dated 28.05.2015.

8. The petitioner has come up with a specific case in paragraph 13 of the Writ Petition that the Inquiry Officer, without fixing any date, time or place for holding the inquiry, submitted his inquiry-report dated 15.06.2015 to the Disciplinary Authority, holding the petitioner guilty. It is the petitioner's case that the Inquiry Officer held the charges proved without the establishment, leading any evidence or examining witnesses to prove them. The charges were held proved by default because the petitioner did not submit a reply to the charge-sheet or produce evidence in defence. The petitioner was held responsible for causing loss of the bulk of rice i.e. subject matter of the charge by the Inquiry Officer.

9. Based on the report of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 30.06.2015. The petitioner carried an Appeal from the order of dismissal under Regulation 21 of the Staff Service Regulation of the Corporation to the Executive Committee. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 12.01.2016 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of dismissal.

10. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been instituted.

11. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are manifestly illegal and vitiated because it is imperative in a case involving