II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the case reported in 2010 (5) ALJ 266 (Muneem Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors.) a person who was blind could also be appointed a dealer and as the Government was aware of the fact that a visually disabled person could not properly run the fair price shop, it had issued a Government Order dated 1.2.2008, by which, it was provided that a visually challenged licencee could engage a helper for running the Fair Price Shop. Learned counsel submitted that, as per the provisions of the "Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995," the petitioner, who was a blind person, had to be brought on an equal footing with a common human being and, therefore, he had to work through the eye of his helper/assistant. III. Learned counsel submitted that throughout the proceedings, the assistance of the helper was never taken. VI. As per the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014, the petitioner had to be given a full opportunity to deny the charges which were leveled against him. A date, place and time ought to have been fixed for the enquiry and, thereafter, on the dates fixed, the petitioner should have been allowed to produce his own witnesses and should have also been permitted to cross-examine the complainants etc. This is, learned counsel submits, what has also been held in the Full Bench decision reported in Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2010 (2) UPLBEC 947 and the decision dated 10.11.2017 passed in Writ C No. 35919 of 2017 (Ansar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.). Crossexamination had been made essential as per the Government Order dated 16.10.2014.
