PARMATAMA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Hemendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 13.3.1989 containing four charges substantially relating to the deselection from duty in the matter of revenue recovery. The petitioner claims that the order impugned is based on no inquiry. It is stated that though, admittedly, he could not submit the reply of the charge sheet but it was the duty of the Inquiry Officer to discuss the charges in the light of the evidence mentioned in the charge sheet in support of the charges and then to form a conclusive opinion.

(3.) IN order to verify the fact that whether any inquiry was conducted or not, this Court summoned the original record of inquiry, which has been produced before this Court. A bare perusal of the record shows that since the petitioner failed to submit reply of the charge sheet, the Inquiry Officer assumed that charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, therefore, he recommended to remove the petitioner from service.