SRI KANT PANDEY Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P. STATE FOOD AND ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of dismissal dated 24-11-1993 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was appointed with the opposite parties salesman and he was suspended by the opposite parties and the charge-sheet dated 1-8-1992 contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition was served upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet which is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. After enquiry report was submitted, a show cause-notice dated 25-9-1992 contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition was given to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice which is Annexure No 6 dated 12-12-1992, to the writ petition Another show cause notice dated 12-3-1993 was given to the petitioner as contained in Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. Thereafter impugned order has been passed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abid Ali, learned counsel for the opposite parties and have also gone through the record including the record of disciplinary proceedings placed before the Court by Shri Abid All. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that this order cannot be sustained for more than one reason. In the first place, it appears from the charge-sheet and the order passed that the report dated 13-7-1992 of Shri Habib Khan has been referred to and relied upon. It is not disputed and is obvious from the record that Shri Habib Khan has not been examined to prove this report nor any opportunity has been given to the petitioner to cross-examine Shri Habib Khan in regard to this report It is settled law that a report or document cannot be deemed to be proved even in administrative proceedings, unless the maker of that report is examined and the concerned employee is given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness after that report. Even though in administrative proceedings the Evidence Act or Rules of evidence as such do not apply but principles of natural justice are equally applicable. Accordingly, it was necessary for the concerned authority to examine Shri Habib Khan and provide an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine him. His failure to do so vitiates the enquiry.