JUDGMENT Amitava Lala and Vijay Kumar Verma, JJ.
1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging order of dismissal passed by the authority concerned on 13.10.2005, Annexure 27 to the Writ Petition.
2. The Writ Petitioner's grievance is that in spite of asking documents to be relied upon, no such documents were supplied to give reply to the show cause. Ultimately, the report was filed on 03.02.2001. Only on 05.01.2002, the Enquiry Officer called upon the petitioner to receive the copies of the documents relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show cause relying upon such documents only on 12.04.2002. Such reply was not accepted by the disciplinary authority taking a view that the time to submit the reply has already been expired and the matter has already been forwarded for approval to the U.P. Public Service Commission. Ultimately, the order of dismissal was passed 13.10.2005.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents contended vide letters dated 17.04.2001 and 13.09.2001, the petitioner was given an opportunity to clarify his stand with regard to the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer but instead of giving the reply to the Enquiry Report the petitioner repeatedly demanded documents for perusal. The State Government ultimately decided to dismiss the petitioner from service and in this regard a letter dated 08.11.2001 was sent to the U.P. Public Services Commission for its approval. Thereafter, the petitioner had made a representation on 24.12.2001 to the Special Secretary, Nagar Vikas Anubhag-I, U.P., Lucknow. It has further stated that it is not a case that no opportunity was given but after affording the opportunity to give reply since the same was not given by the petitioner, the matter was forwarded for approval to the Commission.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2003(1) AWC 704(LB) Radhe Kant Khare v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. from where it appears that when an ultimate decision for dismissal or removal or termination is passed and even in respect of the enquiry, an adequate opportunity is to be given to the parties.
5. We cannot verify the cause in detail whether there was any intentional delay or a genuine delay in submitting reply. But one aspect is very clear that the petitioner was called upon to accept the copies of the documents only on 01.01.2002, when the reply was submitted on 12.04.2002. Had it been the case that there was the necessity of immediate decision equity should not have played any role in this regard. But when we find that the order of dismissal was passed after three years from such incident only on 13.10.2005, we are of the view that balance of convenience prescribes to pass certain order in favour of the petitioner in this regard. Therefore, in disposing the Writ, we are of the view that the order of dismissal will be kept in abeyance till the enquiry on the basis of the reply is completed.
6. Thus the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
7. No order is passed as to costs.