JUDGMENT S.H. A. Raza, J. - The petitioner, who was routine grade clerk In the irrigation Department, has assailed the order dated 26th October, 1983 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal No. IV Lucknow, by means of which the claim petition preferred by him against the order of dismissal dated 5991980 passed by the Superintending Engineer for his reinstatement and payments of arrears of salary and allowances was dismissed. 2. In the year 1977 while the petitioner was posted In Sharda Sahayak Khand, Faizabad and was working on the post of Cashier, on complaints that he had withheld payment of salary of some employees of the department he was placed under suspension with effect from 2061977 and was served with chargesheet dated 991977 and 20121977 against which he submitted his explanation and one Sri I.P. Puchhai, Executive Engineer was appointed as Enquiry Officer who concluded the inquiry and submitted the report. The petitioner was thereafter served with a show cause notice that why he may not be removed from service and thereafter the order removing the petitioner from service had peen passed by the Superintending Engineer. 3. While dismissing the claim petition the Tribunal held that so far as the nonexamination of some material witnesses, namely, Sri Yogendra Singh Parihar, Sri Dinesh Charan Gupta, Sri Amar Nath Chaudhary, Sri Ram Swarath and Sri Vijai Narain was concerned; on behalf of opposite parties it was given out that they were summoned by the Enquiry Officer repeatedly but failed to turn up and some of them were no longer in service in the department, their appearance could not be compelled and if the petitioner wanted to rely on the evidence of any of these witnesses it was open for him to have summoned and examined them in his defence during the inquiry but no effort in this direction was made by the petitioner. It cannot be said that he was prejudiced in any manner as a result of nonappearance of these witnesses during the inquiry. It was further held that the application dated 2681978 contained in Annexure3 moved by the petitioner, no doubt, contains the names of some persons but regarding them it was not alleged that owing to their transfer, they could not be produced. Even in this letter no request was made to the Enquiry Officer to summon any officer. It was further held that the application dated 2681978 contained in Annexure3 moved by the petitioner, no doubt, contains the names of some persons but regarding them it was not alleged that owing to their transfer, they could not be produced. Even in this letter no request was made to the Enquiry Officer to summon any officer. From the evidence it appeared that the petitioner relied on these witnesses only for some allegations regarding malice referred to in the chargesheet and as such their testimony was not directly concerned with the facts which were the subject matter of charges framed against the petitioner In the circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of producing defence witness during the departmental inquiry. It was further held that Annexure3 whereby the petitioner sought 35 day's time for furnishing explanation was sent by him only on 1891980, only a day prior to the passing of the removal order itself and it is highly doubtful if this application had actually reched the Superintending Engineer before he passed the order Annexure1 on 1991980. The Superintending Engineer was, in the circumstances, justified in observing that the petitioner having not furnished any explanation in response to the show cause notice it can be inferred that he has nothing to say further in the matter. 4. A perusal of the finding of the Tribunal would indicate that the examination of some of the material witnesses was justified only on the ground that the witnesses were summoned by the Enquiry Officer but they failed to turn up and since some of them were no longer in service in the department, their appearance could not be compelled. If the petitioner wanted to rely on the evidence of any of these witnesses, it was open for him to have summoned and examined them in his defence during the enquiry but no effort in this direction having been made by the petitioner, it cannot be said that he was prejudiced in any manner as a result of notappearance of these witnesses during enquiry. The Tribunal committed a manifest error of law by justifying the nonproduction of the material evidence. Undoubtedly the petitioner was charged for misappropriation of the government funds and embezzlement, but it was incumbent upon the prosecution witnesses to prove the charge beyond any shadow of doubt. The Tribunal committed a manifest error of law by justifying the nonproduction of the material evidence. Undoubtedly the petitioner was charged for misappropriation of the government funds and embezzlement, but it was incumbent upon the prosecution witnesses to prove the charge beyond any shadow of doubt. Nonproduction of the witnesses for the reason that they were no more in service and their appearance could not be compelled is totally misconceived. 5. The petitioner in his application dated 2681978 contained in Annexure3 has specifically alleged enmity against Sri B.K. Agarwal, Sri Ram Bhajan Ram and Sri Vijai Narain Pandey. He had also mentioned their names in reply to the chargesheet. In support of his averments he wajnted to adduce six witnesses, namely, Sarvshri Permanand Rai, Madan Mohan Misra, Puran Wasi, Radhey Mohan Srivastava, Mahendra Singh and Radhey Shyam Dubey, but they were not summoned. The Tribunal brushed aside this aspect of the matter by giving a finding to the effect that the testimony of these witnesses was not directly concerned with the facts which were the subject matter of the charges framed against the petitioner. This part of the finding is perverse. It was the duty of the Public Services Tribunal to see as to whether a reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. The finding indicate that the material witnesses were not adduced and the [petitioner was denied the right to cross examine them to prove his innocence, furthermore he was denied an opportunity to produce these witnesses in support of his contention that he was implicated in the case on account of enmity, malice and hostility against him. In departmental proceedings it is the duty of the Enquiry Officer to summon the witnesses and in case the witnesses were not summoned and a delinquent is not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, his defence would certainly be prejudice. 6. In his application dated 2171980 contained in Annexure 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for grant of thirty five days' time to prefer his reply against the show cause notice. In the said application he stated that on account of illness he could not send the reply. 6. In his application dated 2171980 contained in Annexure 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for grant of thirty five days' time to prefer his reply against the show cause notice. In the said application he stated that on account of illness he could not send the reply. The district Jaunpur, which he belongs, was in the grip of flood and he could not procure necessary papers as a result of which he was unable to submit the reply but on 19th September, 1980 the order for removal was passed. The Services Tribunal justified the passing of the order of removal for the reason that the said application was sent a day prior to passing of the order and hence it was; highly doubtful if that application had actually reached the Superintending Engineer before he passed the order on 19th September, 1980. This may be a fact but it has to be seen that whether it was proper for the punishing authority to have passed the order of removal without giving a further time to the petitioner to submit his explanation against the show cause notice particularly for the reason that Jaunpur was in grip of the flood. Heaven would have not fallen down if the punishing authority would have given another date for the submission of the explanation as admittedly the explanation did not reach before he passed the order of removal. Justice should not only be done but it should appear to have been done. There was no necessity for the punishing authority to have passed the order in a post haste hurry. 7. When the valuable right of a person is involved, principles of natural justice, fair play and equity demand that a person charged with serious offences be given reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence. 8. There were eleven charges against the petitioner. The report of the Enquiry Officer is a bulky one and contained twenty fullscape typed pages. The punishing authority on 19.h September, 1980 passed the order of removal. The order contained only eighteen lines which indicate that the petitioner was charged with embezzlement and commission of irregularities as a result of which a show cause notice was issued to him to submit his explanation within a week. The punishing authority on 19.h September, 1980 passed the order of removal. The order contained only eighteen lines which indicate that the petitioner was charged with embezzlement and commission of irregularities as a result of which a show cause notice was issued to him to submit his explanation within a week. The notice was served upon him on 2nd September, 1989 but he failed to submit his replies which shows that he had nothing to say anything against the same. In the circumstances the services of the petitioner are terminated. There is not a single word as to whether he has perused the report of the Enquiry Officer before passing the order of removal. The punishing authority also did not indicate about the report of the Enquiry Officer and the order was passed without any application of mind and it does not indicate that he had even perused the report of the Enquiry Officer and agreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was dismissed from service by means of a nonspeaking order. The petitioner was, undoubtedly, denied opportunity to cross examine the material witnesses and produce the defence witnesses to prove his innocence. Only seven days' time was granted to him to prefer reply to the show cause notice. The said period was too short to submit a reply against eleven charges and enquiry report which consisted of twenty pages particularly when the city which he belongs was in grip of floods. The petitioner was dismissed by means of a nonspeaking order, hence this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order of punishment passed against the petitioner contained in Annexure5 and the judgment of the Tribunal contained in Annexure9 to the writ petition. A mandamus is also issued directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 to reinstate the petitioner on his post and pay him salary and other benefits accrued to him. However, it would be open for the opposite parties to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.