JAI BHAGWAN DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

(2.) THROUGH the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.7.1990, removing the petitioner from service.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not supplied with the documents despite repeated requests and was also not allowed opportunity of hearing. The Inquiry Officer thus had not afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He was not paid subsistence allowance regularly, However, some payment was made but it was in the old pay scale. The petitioner's request for supply of the documents and inspection of the record was turned down by the Inquiry Officer. No show cause notice nor any inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and suddenly the order of removal was passed against the petitioner on 5.7.1990. The findings are erroneous. The order of removal is a non-speaking order. In fact all the charges were unfounded. The provisions contained in the C.C.A. Rules and in Article 311 of the Constitution of India, have been flagrantly violated by the opposite parties.