(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J)—Heard Sri L.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the records.2. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2007 passed in writ petition no.151(SS) of 2003 (Abdul Salam v. State of U.P. & others), wherein the writ petition filed against the punishment order of dismissal has been dismissed being devoid of merit.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in short are that the appellant-petitioner was appointed on the post of Ahalmad in the Land Acquisition Department in the year 1971 and subsequently promoted as Head Clerk. He was, however, suspended on 27.7.2000, on various grounds including financial irregularities. Against the order of suspension, appellant-petitioner filed writ petition no.3952(S/S) of 2000 (Abdul Salam v. State of U.P. and others). The said writ petition was finally disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to complete the departmental enquiry within scheduled time frame. The District Magistrate, Lucknow, in compliance of the High Court’s order, appointed Director, Land Acquisition as enquiry officer and directed him to complete the enquiry.4. The appellant-petitioner moved several applications to the authorities for proceeding with the enquiry but with no result. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that he submitted his written interim reply on 25.01.2001. However, the original papers, which were in possession of the Additional District Magistrate, Land Acquisition, Lucknow, were not handed over to the enquiry officer. The appellant-petitioner submitted application on 03.01.2001 and requested for supply of some documents, which were required by him in connection with the enquiry. However, the opposite party no.2 directed the appellant-petitioner to examine the documents in his office. The opposite parties no.4 and 5 were also directed to provide the documents to the appellant-petitioner. The appellant-petitioner approached all the above authorities to receive copies of the documents but he was informed that the original documents were not available in the office.5. As the enquiry was not being completed as per the directions issued by the High Court, the appellant-petitioner filed contempt petition no.1464(C) of 2001. This Court finally disposed of the contempt petition with a direction to the opposite parties to reinstate the appellant-petitioner in service with immediate effect. The opposite parties although reinstated the appellant-petitioner in service vide order dated 11.03.2002 but also filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was decided on 19.07.2002, wherein the order passed by the Contempt Judge was set aside and it was directed that the departmental enquiry be completed within three months’.6. The appellant-petitioner again requested for supply of the documents but his request was not heeded to. The appellant-petitioner was neither served with the preliminary enquiry report dated 30.05.2000 nor the papers annexed with the said report were handed over to him. In this way, the appellant-petitioner was not given all the relevant documents. The appellant-petitioner had submitted a list of 19 witnesses, which he wanted to produce in his support. However, they were not allowed to be examined by the enquiry officer. By order dated 29.8.2002, the enquiry officer had provided last opportunity to submit reply to the charge-sheet, to which the appellant-petitioner had submitted his reply on 5.10.2002 in absence of the documents demanded by him.7. Thereafter, the enquiry officer did not record any oral evidence, rather completed the enquiry in haste without fixing any date, time and place for oral enquiry. The enquiry report was submitted on 17.10.2002, on which show cause notice dated 8.11.2002 was issued to the appellant-petitioner. In response, he appeared before the opposite party no.3 on 11.12.2002. The app Click Here to Read the rest of this document