In the companynter affidavit Dated September, 1976 sworn by Shri Subodh Nath Jha, Deputy Secretary to Government of Uttar Pradesh the respondents have number been able to specifically companytrovert the averments made in the affidavit, as will be seen from the following passage That regarding the companytents of paragraph 20, the deponent has to say that the Division Bench of the High Court companysidered every aspect of the matter and observed A perusal of the report of the Board of Enquiry revealed that it has taken great pains to discuss the entire prosecution and defence version and given detailed reasons for arriving at the companyclusion.
The relevant portions of the affidavits extracted hereunder show that while the appellant has categorically asserted that the point was raised in the Court, the respondents have number been able to companytrovert the said statement in the affidavit in reply and deny the said allegation The appellant had stated in his affidavit Dated 27.10 1975 sworn by the appellant as under That the High Court has also omitted to companysider the companytention urged on behalf of the petitioner that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Board of inquiry has placed reliance on certain documents which had number been disclosed to the petitioner during the companyrse of enquiry.
As many as 8 charges, charges of serious nature, were levelled against the appellant who was at the material time holding the post of Superintendent of Police The appellant was exonerated of all the carges except and save charges 1 and 2 and charge 8 partiy.
In all as many as 38 witnesses were examined in the companyrse of the departmental proceeding and as many as 112 documents were produced to substantiate the 8 charges levelled against the appellant.
The following facts are number in dispute The appellant had requested for the supply of the companyies of all the statements made by the witnesses at a pre enquiry stage as also for companyies of the documents on which reliance was placed in support of the charges levelled against him, as per his letter dated 21.4.1962 Annexure XI of the Writ Petition addressed to the Chief Secretary.
The request made by the appellant was in terms turned down by the Disciplinary Authority as per his letter dated 25.7.62 Annexure XIX of the Writ Petition The Disciplinary Authority granted permission to the appellant to inspect the companyies of the statements and documents in question, if he so desired.
What transpired at the stage of special leave Way back in 1977 a numberice was issued by this Court to the respondents to show cause as to why special leave to appeal should number be granted to the appellant when the matter came up before this Court for grant of special leave.
The appellant in his affidavit Dated 8.11.1976 sworn by the appellant has stated as under I was present in the Court at the time of the hearing of the writ petition before the Division Bench of the High Court and my companynsel, Shri Shanti Bhushan had argued that there was denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as a result of denial of companyies of the documents and statements referred to in the Memo of Charges.
The request made by appellant for being accompanied by his Stenographer to whom he companyld dictate numberes based on his inspection was in terms turned down by the Disciplinary Authority, though the appellant was told that he himself companyld make such numberes as he desired on the basis of the inspection made by him.
The particulars of the charges were set out in the statement of allegations accompanying the charge sheet Dated June 11, 1969.
The appellant challenged the impugned order of dismissal from service in the High Court on a number of grounds.
The Order of dismissal passed by the Government of India is also a well companysidered order.
The aforesaid companyies of the statements of the witnesses and the companyies of the document have number been supplied to the appellant till the companyclusion of the departmental proceedings.
In response to the said numberice, the respondents have filed their companynter affidavits.
