RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While serving as Chief Revenue Accountant at District Etawah, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Ten charges were levelled against him vide order dated 16.6.2006. He was called up on to submit his reply to the said charge sheet within 15 days from the date of receipt of the communication. It was mentioned in the charge sheet that in case, he wants to examine any witness, the name of said witness be also submitted to the Enquiry Officer.

(2.) Vide communication dated 7.3.2006 the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to furnish him documents so as to enable him to file a reply to the charge sheet. The aforesaid communication dated 7.3.2006 gave details of the documents which were sought by the petitioner. The documents sought by the petitioner were in respect of the allegations levelled against him in the charge sheet. The disability was shown by the petitioner in filing reply in absence of the documents sought to be supplied to him. A reply was sent by the District Magistrate in pursuance of the communication sent by the petitioner dated 7.3.2006 communicating that the documents have been supplied to him. It was replied by the petitioner vide his communication dated 20.3.2006 in which he has clearly stated that no such documents have been supplied to him. It was informed by this communication that in case the request for supplying the documents is rejected, the same may be communicated to him.

(3.) Vide communication dated 24.3.2006, the petitioner again informed the Enquiry Officer to supply the documents details of which have been mentioned in the letter dated 7.3.2006 and also to provide an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who are likely to be examined in support of the charges levelled against him. Another communication was addressed by the petitioner in which it was again requested to supply the documents sought by him.