(1.) The application, seeking condonation of delay, is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents and the delay is, therefore condoned.
(2.) Thereafter a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and, subsequently, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 15/7/1993. As the appellant-writ petitioner did not submit his reply to the charge memo, inquiry proceedings were held ex-parte and his services were terminated by order dtd. 8/9/1993. The said order of termination was subjected to challenge before the State Public Services Tribunal, and the claim petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner was dismissed by order dtd. 9/5/2003. The appellant-writ petitioner questioned both the order of termination dtd. 8/9/1993, and the order of the Tribunal dtd. 9/5/2003, before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the inquiry report was not furnished to him. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition, and set-aside the order of termination dtd. 8/9/1993 as well the order of the Tribunal dtd. 9/5/2003. The Division Bench further observed that reinstatement of the petitioner in service would be subject to the final order to be passed by the competent authority after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner (evidently his reply to the inquiry report).
(3.) In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner was reinstated into service; thereafter a show cause notice was given to him on 11/11/2013, along with the inquiry report, to which he submitted his reply; on the ground that his reply was not convincing, the competent authority again passed an order of dismissal dtd. 11/12/2013; the appellant-writ petitioner had not challenged any procedural flaws in the inquiry proceedings; the petitioner had contended that he and his father were residing at Manpuri Railway Phatak Crossing in Itawa; his father was engaged in hardware business; he was not well and was suffering from Colitis; and he was being treated by Homeopathic Doctor at Aligarh.