http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAVINDER NATH CHATURVEDI & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/08/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1995 (6)   614        1995 SCALE  (5)86

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       O R D E R      Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.      The high  Court has  set aside  the imposition  of  the penalty on  the respondents on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the respondents during  the inquiry by the  Inquiry Officer.  It is  also found  that no one was examined to  prove the  case  of  the  State.  It  would  be desirable that  an officer  who    is  acquainted  with  the records may  also  be  examined  to  prove  the  documentary evidence and  opportunity may be given to the respondents to cross-examine  the   witness  or  produce  any  evidence  in rebuttal. Thereafter,  inquiry will be conducted, the report will be  given and  copy thereof  will be  supplied  to  the respondents.      The order  of the  High Court in accordingly set aside. The Inquiry  Officer, if  he is still in service is directed to conduct  and complete the inquiry within a period of four months from  the date of receipt of this Order. If he is not in service, the State is directed to appoint another Inquiry Officer afresh  who would  do the  needful within  the  said period.      In case  of fresh  appointment of  Inquiry Officer, the State Government  is directed  to appoint an Inquiry Officer within one  month from  the date  of receipt  of this Order. After submission  of the  report by the Inquiry Officer, the State Government is further directed to consider the inquiry report and  take appropriate  decision within  three  months thereafter.      The  appeal  is  accordingly  allowed  with  the  above directions. No costs.