ORDER M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Upadhaya learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal dated 28.2.1998 Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
3. The respondent No. 1 was Assistant Director of Education, U. P., and he was suspended on 26.4.1988 and thereafter he was charge-sheeted on 2.1.1989 and he gave a reply to the charge-sheet on 7,5.1990. True copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure-4 to the Claim Petition, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. True copy of the reply of the respondent No. 1 to the charge-sheet is Annexure-11 to the Claim Petition.
4. It appears that thereafter no notice was given to the petitioner informing him of the date, time and place of enquiry and the punishment order was passed on the basis of the reply given by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a Claim Petition before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, which has been allowed. In paragraph 17 of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it has been mentioned that the Enquiry Officer did not inform the petitioner about the date, time and place of the enquiry. In our opinion, this itself vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings being in violation of the principles of natural justice vide Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and Anr., 1999 (4) AWC 3227 : (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541 ; Subhash Chandra Sharma v. U. P. Co-operative Spinning Mills and Ors., 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1474 ; Sahngoo Ram Arya v. Chief Secretary, State of U. P. Lucknow and Ors., 2002 (2) AWC 902 : 2002 ALJ 993. In these decisions, it has been held that if a dismissal order is passed without intimating the petitioner the date, time and place of the inquiry, the order will be in violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. The decision in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and Anr. (supra) has relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court e.g., Meenglas Tea Estate v. The Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 ; S. C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 212 : Punjab National Bank v. A.I.P.N.B.E. Federation. AIR 1960 SC 160 ; A. C. C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1993) II LLJ 396 ; Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1963) II LLJ 78 (SC) ; Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348 and Uma Shankar v. Registrar, 1992 (65) FLR 674 (All).
6. In view of the above decisions, we see no illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The petition is dismissed.