VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rohit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Challenging the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the opposite party No.4 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service, which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically submitted in paras-3, 15 and 23 of the writ petition that during the course of departmental inquiry, no date, time and place was fixed and the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of oral hearing to defend the allegations, to examine/ cross-examine the witnesses etc. In the counter affidavit, no specific denial to that effect has been given.

(3.) In para-23 of the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that after submitting the defence reply to the charge-sheet on 16.02.2015 the Inquiry Officer has concluded the inquiry on 26.03.2015. So as to verify the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court summoned the relevant records. The records are produced and the perusal thereof reveals that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct inasmuch as after submitting the defence reply to the charge-sheet on 16.02.2015 the Inquiry Officer has concluded the departmental inquiry on 26.03.2015 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by fixing date, time and place for oral examination.