(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Heard Shri Pankaj Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE pleadings are complete and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally under the Rules of the Court.
(3.) COUNTER-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry but despite repeated information he did not attend oral enquiry before the Enquiry Officer/disciplinary authority and therefore, oral enquiry was completed in his absence where after order of punishment was passed since charges found proved are grave. It is also contended that there is no error in decision making process and therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy by filing claim petition under Section 4 of the U. P. Service (Tribunal) Act, 1976, which has not been availed by him, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.