By proceedings dated May 25, 1987, he was kept under suspension on disciplinary grounds and enquiry was companyducted in that behalf.
The disciplinary authority passed the order on January 6, 1988 removing the respondent from service.
Consequently by proceedings dated December 5, 1987, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the 5 charges were proved against the respondent and recommended for his dismissal from service.
With regard to his capacity to purchase the properties worth Rs.10,000/ , he had stated that pursuant to his reinstatement in service, out of payment of arrears of a sum of Rs.40,000/ he had purchased the properties worth Rs.10,000/ .
The representative petition before the Service Tribunal resulted in dismissal.
He was removed from service in the year 1977 and, ultimately, by orders of the Court he was reinstated in the service on July 12, 1984.
According to the explanation given by the respondent, he sought oral permission and pursuant to the oral permission, he had sold the properties.
Charge 2 relates to sale of properties worth Rs.91,000/ to the private persons and also purchase of the properties worth Rs.10,000/ , which are admitted facts.
The enquiry officer companysidered that nine witnesses were relevant in respect of charges and that respondant was called upon to cross examine those witnesses but respondent had number chosen to cross examine thoss witnesses.
Though opportunities were given to the respondent, he did number avail it.
Lucknow Bench made on September 5, 1991 in W.P. No.9550 of 1989.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
This was brought to the numberice of the authorities and that oral permission was given.
His writ petition was allowed by the High Court.
He was appointed on December 4, 1973 as a Clerk in the Collectorate, Hardoi on temporary basis.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Allahabad High Court.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
It is seen that since the respondent did number companyperate in the enquiry, the witnesses companyld number be examined with regard to charges 1, 3 and 5.
He had asked for production of 21 witnesses for cross examination.
The respondent had challenged the order of his removal from service.
