http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. &

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: T.P. LAL SRIVASTAVA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Though notice was sent to the respondent on January 25, 1995, till  date neither  acknowledge nor unserved cover has been received   back. Under these circumstances, notice must be deemed  to have  been served on the respondent. He is set ex parte.      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Allahabad High  Court made on March 15, 1993 in writ Petition No.  12480/87. The  admitted position is that while the respondent  was working as a Senior Marketing Inspector, a charge-sheet  was served  on  him  on  November  23,  1984 calling upon  him to  explain   the charges  for  committing gross irregularities  in the  movement of  wheat outside the State of  U.P. Instead  of submitting  reply to  the charge- sheet, he  went on  dilly-dallying in  submitting the reply. Several  letters   addressed  to   the   respondent   proved ineffective. Resultantly,  the appellants took a decision on June 26,  1987 holding  that the respondent was found guilty of misappropriation.  Consequently, he  came to be dismissed from service. The respondent challenged the same in the writ petition. The  High Court  has set  aside the  order in  the impugned order  holding   that the  documents have  not been supplied to  the respondent  and, therefore,  the action was vitiated by  error of  law. We do not find any justification in   the view taken by the High Court; the substratum of the result is that the appellants have not conducted any enquiry though the  respondent had  been avoiding to give the reply. Since the respondent had avoided to submit the reply, he has forgone his  right   to submit  his reply.  Nonetheless, the appellants are not absolved of the duty to hold an  ex-parte enquiry to  find out   whether  or not  the charge  has been proved. In  the event  of the  Enquiry Officer find that the charge  is  proved,  he  would  submit  his  report  to  the disciplinary authority.  The disciplinary  authority  should communicate the copy of the enquiry report to the respondent and seek   an  explanation  for the proposed action thereon. If the  respondent submits  any explanation, the same may be taken into consideration and appropriate order may be passed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

according to  law. Until then, the respondent must be deemed to be under suspension.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed,  but   in  the circumstances, without costs.