Enquiry proceedings must adhere to the Service Rules and principles of natural justice. Non-furnishing of the enquiry report creates an adverse inference against the opposite parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

3. The petition has been filed against the order dated 16.06.2021, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Further relief of a direction to the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Ward Boy (Bhritya) has also been sought along with arrears of salary.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that certain unsubstantiated complaints were made against the petitioner regarding fake appointments having been made on Class IV, including the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had been issued a charge sheet dated 16.10.2020 containing two charges levelled against him. Petitioner was required to give his reply within a period of 15 days before the Enquiry Officer, however certain documents were required by the petitioner to be provided to him, which were not provided by the opposite parties due to which the petitioner was unable to submit his reply and thereafter an ex-parte enquiry was conducted against him. It is submitted that the impugned order indicates that the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report on 13.01.2021 finding petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and recommending major penalty of removal from service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid enquiry proceedings have been conducted in violation of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 inasmuch as neither any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner nor was the enquiry conducted in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. It is further submitted that even a copy of the enquiry report was not provided to petitioner and no show cause notice was given to him prior to passing the impugned order of dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc. Vs. B. Karunakar etc.; AIR 1994 SCC 1074 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey Vs. Chancellor Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University; Writ Petition No.189 (SB) of 2012 to stress his submissions.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that a perusal of impugned order will make it apparent that reply was sought from the petitioner, but when it was not provided by him, the enquiry officer was left with no other option, but to proceed ex-parte against petitioner, where after he has been found guilty of the charges levelled against him and therefore the order of dismissal has been rightly passed against him, which does not require any interference by this Court.

7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order dated 16.06.2021, it is apparent that the enquiry proceedings ensued with the issuance of charge sheet dated 16.10.2020 against the petitioner containing two charges. The impugned order also narrates the fact that petitioner had sought certain documents stated by him to be relevant for the purposes of submission of his reply. It is also indicated in the impugned order that enquiry proceedings were thereafter conducted in the absence of any reply furnished by petitioner.

8. The impugned order also makes it evident that it is based primarily on findings recorded by enquiry officer in the enquiry report dated 13.01.2021.

9. It is a relevant fact that the petitioner has specifically made an averment in paragraph no.35 of the writ petition that copy of enquiry report was never supplied to him. It has also been stated that no show cause notice was given prior to passing of impugned order. The aforesaid averments have not been specifically denied in the co