Instead, the enquiry officer in his letter dated 18.5.1981 had given the reply stating that since the respondent had already given the reply to the charge sheet item wise, he was at liberty to inspect the documents at the time of final arguments on June 7, 1981.
The judgment was rendered on 5.2.1993 setting aside the orders of dismissal and leaving open the holding of fresh enquiry, if necessary.
Therefore, on March 22, 1991 a charge sheet was given to the respondent, after appointing an enquiry officer.
The Vice Chancellor in his proceedings dated 27.1.1983 and the Chancellor in his proceedings dated 12.8.1983 had given their approval under the relevant provisions of the U.P. Universities Act.
The charge levelled against the respondent was that he had misappropriated certain funds belonging to the Institution.
At the earliest, he wanted inspection of the documents mentioned in the charge sheet.
Based on that report, on 23.6.1982 the show cause numberice as to why he should number be dismissed from service was given to the respondent.
He did number ask the enquiry officer for an opportunity to examine the witness on his behalf The question of hearing him by the Committee did number arise inasmuch as there is numbersuch provision in the bye laws of the society or the rules.
Consequently, the enquiry officer had submitted his report on 9.5.82.
The appropriate resolution has been passed by the appellant on 22.9.1982 to dismiss the respondent from service, subject to its approval by the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor.
The respondent had given the reply on April 13, 1981 to the charge sheet.
11542/83 in the High Court at Allahabad.
But there being numberprovision to give hearing to an employee in the meeting of the companymittee, the same was number given to the respondent.
Therefore, there was numberviolation of principles of natural justice, on the facts of this case.
30.6.1993.
The respondent challenged the order of dismissal in P. No.
Admittedly, neither the documents had been supplied number an opportunity of inspection had been given to the respondent.
Leave granted.
Admittedly, the respondent acted as a principal of the appellants Institution.
This appeal by Special Leave has been filed on 3.5.1993.
From time to time, the enquiry was postponed.
Ultimately, the respondent did number participate in the enquiry.
Thereafter the appellant dismissed the respondent from service.
Pending its disposal the respondent retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 12.12.1992.It would appear that the respondent was reappointed till the end of academic year as per rules and on the expiry of the academic year he stood superannuated according to rules w.e.f.
