JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 1st of August, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. 3. The appellant was working as a Stenographer in the Judgeship of Ballia. At the relevant time, he was working in the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge. He was on medical leave without pay from 27.1.1994 to 21.2.1995. The appellant thereafter claims to have submitted his joining along with the medical fitness certificate on 22.2.1995, which joining has endorsement of the District Judge ‘provisionally permitted’. However, the appellant thereafter was not allowed to work as Stenographer in the Court concerned, and his case is that he sat with Munsarim during that period of about two months. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated by issuing a charge sheet levelling the charge that the appellant has not worked from 22.2.1995 to 2.5.1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, but he marked his attendance on one single day, i.e., on 2.5.1995 for all the aforesaid period. The charge-sheet was replied by the appellant and the inquiry was held. The Inquiry Officer recorded the statement of Shayam Narain Ojha, Dina Nath and Kishore Ram, who was working as C.J.M. The appellant and Baij Nath Verma appeared before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer, vide his report dated 5.1.1996 submitted a report to the District Judge proving the charge that the appellant had made signatures on one single day for the period 22.2.1995 to 2.5.1995. The District Judge issued a show-cause notice on 10.1.1996 asking the appellant to file his reply by 24.1.1996. The District Judge passed an order on 27.1.1996 dismissing the appellant from service. The said dismissal had been challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, which has been dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submitted that the Inquiry Officer while submitting the inquiry report did not advert to the reply/explanation submitted by the appellant and the evidence collected in the inquiry. He submits that an explanation for signing the attendance register on one day has been duly given in the reply, which has not been adverted to by the Inquiry Officer. He submits that an explanation for signing the attendance register on one day has been duly given in the reply, which has not been adverted to by the Inquiry Officer. He submits that after provisional acceptance of his joining report, he was not allowed to work as Stenographer in the Court concerned on the ground that unless the joining report is finally accepted by the District Judge, he will not be allowed to work. He further submits that he was working with Munsarim. The appellant’s case is that the Munsarim did not permit him to sign from the date he reported on duty on the ground that when the final joining report is accepted by the District Judge only then, he will be allowed to sign. He submits that the appellant had also filed a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2904 of 1996, which was disposed of by this Court on 23.1.1996 observing that the District Judge shall look into the grievance of the writ petitioner and dispose of his representation by a speaking order, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The appellant’s Counsel submits that the certified copy of the order dated 23.1.1996 along with the reply of the show-cause notice was given on 27.1.1996 in the Judgeship, which was not received by the S.A.O. nor by the Head Clerk; hence it was sent by the Registered Post on the same day, i.e. on 27.1.1996. He submits that his reply could not be considered, and the extreme penalty of dismissal has been ordered. 5. Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the appellant has signed the attendance register on one day. He further submits that the writ petitioner did not submit the reply within time; hence no error was committed by the District Judge in passing the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the records. The only charge, which was levelled against the appellant was that he on 2.5.1995 marked his attendance from 22.2.1995 to 2.5.1995. The appellant has also admitted marking the attendance on one day. He has further given his reply to the District Judge, which has been annexed as Annexure-16. The Inquiry Officer did not advert to the explanation nor gave any finding with regard to the explanation given by the petitioner. The appellant has also admitted marking the attendance on one day. He has further given his reply to the District Judge, which has been annexed as Annexure-16. The Inquiry Officer did not advert to the explanation nor gave any finding with regard to the explanation given by the petitioner. In the order of dismissal, it has been mentioned that although time was allowed and a show-cause notice given, but no reply has been submitted. 7. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that there was valid explanation given by the appellant for not submitting the reply by 24.1.1996, he submits that the writ petition No.2904 of 1996 filed by the appellant was decided on 23.1.1996, and in that connection the appellant was at Allahabad up to 24.1.1996. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that only working day which intervene between 24 and 27.1.1996, 26.1.1996, being National Holiday. On 27.1.1996 itself the order was passed by the District Judge dismissing the appellant from service. The District Judge has observed in the order that no reply has been submitted by the appellant. 8. From the facts and materials brought on the record, we are satisfied that the appellant could not submit the reply by 24.1.1996 due to justified reasons as noted above. The Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report has not adverted to the explanation given by the appellant to the charge-sheet and other materials, which were on the record in the inquiry proceedings. A copy of the inquiry report has been filed as Annexure-13, dated 5.1.1996. The said inquiry report appears to have been received by the Senior Administrative Officer on 10.1.1996 and on the same day, notice was given by the District Judge to the appellant asking him to submit a reply by 24.1.1996 positively. The Inquiry Officer although noted in his order the statement of witnesses recorded in the inquiry, but inquiry report does not disclose any consideration of such materials. The order of the District Judge also do not advert to the reply given by the appellant to the charge sheet, and the other material on the record. 9. In above view of the matter, we are satisfied that the reply given by the appellant needs consideration by the District Judge. The order of the District Judge also do not advert to the reply given by the appellant to the charge sheet, and the other material on the record. 9. In above view of the matter, we are satisfied that the reply given by the appellant needs consideration by the District Judge. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the District Judge dated 27.1.1996 and remit the matter before the District Judge for taking a fresh decision on the basis of materials already on the record. While passing the order, the District Judge, shall take into consideration the reply of the appellant dated 27.1.1996. Further course of action shall be subject to the order passed by the District Judge hereinafter. Our orders and observations are without prejudice to the rights of both the parties, and the District Judge, while taking a decision, shall not feel influence by any observations made by the learned Single Judge or by us in this order. 10. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The order of the District Judge dated 27.1.1996 is set aside to the extent as indicated above. The parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal Allowed. ———