JUDGMENT :

Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shiv Pravesh Dhar Dubey as well as Sanjeev Singh, learned CSC for the State.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.11.2011, contained in Annexure No. 1 with this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept joining of the petitioner and pay all his consequential benefits immediately.

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1987 under the opposite party No.2. On 16.03.1988, the petitioner was posted as Tractor Driver at Ruramallu. The petitioner became absent without any intimation to the authorities since November, 1991 hence an explanation was called from him as the petitioner neither reported duty nor any explanation was submitted by him with regard to registered letter dated 31.08.1992 by which the petitioner was intimated that if he does not come to his duty within a week, the action will be taken against him under the provisions of U.P. Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956. In spite of that letter, he has not reported on duty. The letter was ultimately served to the petitioner on 01.07.1993 to which the petitioner replied that he is ill since November, 1991 and still has not recovered. He submitted his joining report on 15.03.1996. The matter of the petitioner was referred to the opposite party No.2 for further course of action who sought direction from the Additional Director of Agriculture (Administration) U.P. Lucknow. In the meantime, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4154 (S/S) of 1998 for acceptance of his joining. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 23.07.2008 with a direction to the opposite party No.3 to take a decision in the matter. In compliance of the order dated 23.07.2008 passed by this Court, the petitioner's case was considered by the Additional Director of Agriculture (Administration) U.P. Lucknow who vide order dated 21.01.2009 directed the Joint Director of Agriculture Jhansi Mandal Jhansi (Appointing Authority) to decide the matter of the petitioner on merits after making enquiry and affording the opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to the order dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Additional Director of Agriculture, the Enquiry Officer was appointed, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 17.02.2009 containing charge that he was absent from duty since November, 1991 to 14.03.1996 and also he was in jail in Case Crime No.130A/91 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 & 504 I.P.C. Reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner and after that Enquiry Officer submitted his report after conducting the enquiry and recommended for punishment and disciplinary authority ultimately has passed the order of punishment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after suplly of the copy of the charge sheet, the petitioner though has submitted reply, however, during course of the entire enquiry, no oral hearing was done. No documents on which the charges were pasted were supplied to the petitioner. Documents relied by the enquiry officer has not been proved by the witnesses. No evidence has been recorded in presence of the petitioner, neither any opportunity to cross examine was given to the petitioner. No date, time and place of enquiry was fixed. enquiry report was submitted only on the basis of reply to the charge sheet.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments:

(i) Moti Ram Vs. State {2013 L.C.D. Page 1319}

(ii) Vinod Kumar Vs. Bank of Baroda {2013 (31) L.C.D. page 2116}

(iii) Rajender Prasad Srivastava Vs. State {2011 (29) L.C.D. page 2417}

(i