JUDGMENT
M. Katju, J.
1. In this case on December 13, 1990 this Court granted three weeks to the Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit. Thereafter on January 23, 1991 one month’s time was again granted to file counter-affidavit. No counter-affidavit was filed despite these orders, and on April 6, 1992 I directed the petitioner to serve respondent Nos. 1 and 2 personally. The petitioner has filed his affidavit of service showing service on these respondents. No counter-affidavit has been filed even today. I am not inclined to grant any further lime to file counter-affidavit as time has been granted repeatedly since December 13, 1990. It seems that the orders of this Court are not taken seriously by the Standing Counsel and despite several opportunities counter-affidavits are not filed for the reasons best known to the State.
2. In the circumstances, I am treating the allegations in the petitioner to be correct, and I am proceeding to dispose of this petition finally.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Co-operative Inspector, Group II by the order dated February 11, l980 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Subsequently, he was transferred as Managing Director, Meerut Farmers Services Co-operative Society, Meerut by the order dated July 24, 1981 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The petitioner was charge-sheeted by charge-sheet dated May 26, 1988 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). He sent a reply dated September 5, 1988 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). It is alleged in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that thereafter no enquiry was held and the petitioner was dismissed from service by the order dated September 15, 1989 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition). Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. As already stated above, in this case time to file counter-affidavit had been granted repeatedly but no counter- affidavit has been filed. Accordingly, it was to be held that the allegation in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that no enquiry was held against the petitioner must be taken to be correct.
5. I have perused the impugned order dated September 15, 1989 (Annexure-12 to the petition). In this order it is stated that vide letter dated May 26,1988 the charge-sheet was sent to the petitioner’s address, and he was asked to give his explanation, but he did not submit any explanation. Thereafter the charge-sheet was published in the Hindi Newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ on September 17, 1988 and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply within 15 days but again he did not submit his reply,
6. The impugned order states that the enquiry report was sent by the Enquiry Officer by his letter dated January 16, 1989 which was received in the offic of the Deputy Registrar on January 21, 1989. It is not clear whether this enquiry was a regular enquiry or a preliminary enquiry. Even assuming that it was a regular enquiry, it was necessary that the notice of the enquiry should have been sent to the petitioner. In my opinion, even if the accused employee does not send his reply to the charge-sheet, the Enquiry Officer is not absolved from his duty to send a notice to the accused informing him about the date, time and place of the enquiry. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition there is a clear averment that the petitioner was not informed about any date of holding of the enquiry. In paragraph 13 it is stated that without holding any enquiry, or providing any opportunity of being heard, the petitioner was dismissed.
7. It appears that the respondents were under a misconception about the law that if an accused employee does not reply to the charge-sheet then he need not be given opportunity of hearing in the enquiry. In my opinion, even if it is correct that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet, it was incumbent on the Enquiry Officer to have sent a notice to the petitioner informing him about the date, time and place of the enquiry, so that the petitioner could produce his witnessess, and cross examine the witnesses against him. Since this was not done, the rules of natural justice have been violated,
8. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated September 15, 1989 (Annexure 12 to the petition) is illegal and is herewith quashed. However, it is open to the respondents to take fresh proceedings against the petitioner and after holding an enquiry, of which the petitioner is informed well in advance, and in which the petitioner is given full opportunity of presenting his witnesses and cross-examining the witnesses against him, a fresh order can be passed in accordance with law.
9. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated September 15, 1989 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.