SHAFAT ULLAH Vs. COMMISSIONER VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.K. Parekh learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 21 -9 -2000 and 23 -1 -2001 (Annexures -1 and 2 to the petition.)

(3.) IN paragraph 15 it is stated that thereafter no enquiry took place and petitioner was never informed any date of the enquiry and no witness was examined in his presence. No documents were produced before the Enquiry Officer in the presence of the applicant and he was not given opportunity to rebut any document against him. Instead suddenly a letter dated 21 -8 -97 was sent by the Enquiry Officer alongwith his report. Copy of the same is Annexure -10 to the petition. The petitioner gave reply to the show -cause notice vide Annexure -CA -7 to the counter affidavit. Thereafter the impugned order dismissing the petitioner dated 20 -10 -97 was passed. Against that order the petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed on 31 -12 -99 vide Annexure -4 to the petition. In the appellate order it has been stated that there was violation of Rule 33 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Seva Niyamavali since approval of the U.P. Public Service Commission was not taken. Thereafter the respondents took approval from the Commission, and the impugned order dated 23 -1 -2001 (Annexure -2 to the petition) was passed. Thereafter the petitioner filed an Appeal, which was dismissed vide Annexure -11 to the petition. Hence, this writ petition.