ARIF RIZWAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed challenging order of dismissal passed by the authority concerned on 13-10- 2005, Annexure 27 to the Writ Petition.

(2.) THE Writ Petitioner's grievance is that in spite of asking documents to be relied upon, no such documents were supplied to give reply to the show cause. Ultimately, the report was filed on 3-2-2001. Only on 5-1-2002, the Enquiry Officer called upon the petitioner to receive the copies of the documents relied upon by the petitioner. THE petitioner replied to the show cause relying upon such documents only on 12-4-2002. Such reply was not accepted by the disciplinary authority taking a view that the time to submit the reply has already been expired and the matter has already been forwarded for approval to the U. P. Public Service Commission. Ultimately, the order of dismissal was passed on 13-10-2005.

(3.) WE cannot verify the cause in detail whether there was any intentional delay or a genuine delay in submitting reply. But one aspect is very clear that the petitioner was called upon to accept the copies of the documents only on 1-1-2002, when the reply was submitted on 12-4-2002. Had it been the case that there was the necessity of immediate decision equity should not have played any role in this regard. But when we find that the order of dismissal was passed after three years from such incident only on 13-10- 2005, we are of the view that balance of convenience prescribes to pass certain order in favour of the petitioner in this regard. Therefore, in disposing the writ, we are of the view that the order of dismissal will be kept in abeyance till the enquiry on the basis of the reply is completed.