petitioner has been denied by the respondent Department. Counsel further submits that as per the communication received by the Department from the Police authorities, they are in the process of filing the challan against the present petitioner and therefore also, he does not deserve any interference in his favour. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is admitted on record that the allegations, whatsoever, as made against the present petitioner are based on the information given by one Suresh Kumar and not that he had been caught red handed using any unfair means. Further, the letter dated 13.12.2021, vide which he was called upon to appear before the Committee reflected the date for appearance only on 17.12.2021 i.e. just after a period of three days. It is highly improbable that the letter dated 13.12.2021 sent by ordinary/registered post would reach the incumbent within a period of two days so as to make it possible for him to appear before the authorities within the said period. The fact that the letter dated 13.12.2021 had been received by the petitioner on 20.12.2021 only has not been disputed by the respondent Department. It is therefore, clear that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before passing of the order impugned dated 01.06.2022. It is clearly a case based on the information of a third person and therefore, the explanation whatsoever, from the person aggrieved was essential to be taken on record and to be considered before passing an order so harsh so as to debar him from all future examinations.
