From a perusal of the record, it appears that certain companyplaints were received against Respondent 1 somewhere in 1988 89 which led to Respondent 1 being placed under suspension w.e.f.
During the pendency of that writ petition, a charge sheet was issued to Respondent 1 and an enquiry officer was appointed on April 18, 1990 to companyduct the enquiry against him.
The Division Bench of the High Court while allowing the writ petition found that the report of the enquiry officer had number been supplied to Respondent 1 even though the proceedings had taken place after November 20, 1990.
Respondent 1 successfully challenged the order of dismissal and his writ petition was allowed on September 10, 1997.
Even thereafter, numbernotice was issued to the respondent to show cause against his dismissal and on October 15, 1992, Respondent 1 was dismissed from service.
Respondent 1 challenged the order of suspension by filing Writ Petition No.
There is some dispute about the reason for the number appearance of Respondent 1 before the enquiry officer but the fact remains that on February 19, 1992, the enquiry officer gave an ex parte report against the respondent.
That the report of the enquiry officer was number supplied to Respondent 1 before he was dismissed from service has number been disputed by Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.
2259 SB ,of 1993 dated September 10, 1997.
The order of dismissal was published in the newspaper on December 28, 1992.
1836 of 1990.
Relying upon the judgment in Union of India v. Mohd.
December 1, 1989.
Leave granted.
Ramzan Khan case 1991 I LLJ 29 SC as clarified by the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECU v. Karunakar 1994 I LLJ 162 SC the High Court held that the order of dismissal of Respondent 1 was vitiated for number supply of the report of the enquiry officer and for denial of opportunity to Respondent 1 to represent against the report of the enquiry officer.
