JUDGMENT :

1. In this case, notice was issued on 07.01.2020, granting time to the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and to Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 8 to file counter affidavits. No counter affidavit has been filed either on behalf of the State or on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 8. This Court vide order dated 07.01.2020 has condoned the latches in filing the petition.

2. Admit.

3. Heard forthwith.

4. Heard Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.

5. No one appears on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 8.

6. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 15.10.2005 passed by the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad dismissing the petitioner, a Safai Karmchari from service. This order has been upheld in appeal by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad vide order dated 12.03.2007. Both these orders are impugned in the present writ petition.

7. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a Safai Karmchari with the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad by the Nagar Ayukt in the year 1992. He was later on made a permanent employee. It is the petitioner's case that there was a marriage in the family and he submitted a leave application on 04.05.2005, before the Nagar Ayukt and the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, seeking ten days' leave. This application was forwarded to the Nagar Ayukt on 09.05.2005. The Nagar Swasthya Adhikari appears to have submitted a report to the Apar Nagar Ayukt, saying that the petitioner is already on medical leave, and, therefore, it is not possible to sanction ten days' leave to him. This report was communicated to the Nagar Ayukt. The petitioner was never intimated about it. The petitioner was also not intimated of the orders made on his leave application dated 04.05.2005.

8. According to the petitioner, seven months passed by, with no decision being taken on his leave application. It is the petitioner's case that on a complaint submitted by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, the Nagar Ayukt decided to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for being absent without sanction of leave. The decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, according to the petitioner, was taken relying on the report of the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari and without calling for an explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending inquiry vide order dated 30.06.2005. A charge-sheet dated 30.06.2005 was served upon the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted a reply dated 14.07.2005.

9. It is the petitioner's case that the Inquiry Officer did not fix any date, time or place of inquiry nor intimated the petitioner at any point of time, in any manner, about the proceedings of the inquiry. It is pleaded that in the proceedings of the inquiry, the petitioner was neither informed by the Inquiry Officer nor was he called upon to adduce oral evidence. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry and made a report dated 24.09.2005. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 30.09.2005. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice.

10. The Nagar Ayukt, thereafter, proceeded to pass the impugned order, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court vide Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20517 of 2006, but it was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy vide order dated 17.04.2006. Post dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962 before the Commissioner of the Division. The Commissioner, by an order dated 12.03.2007, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dismissing the petitioner from service.

11. Aggrieved, this petition has been instituted.

12. The submission of the learned Counsel for