JUDGMENT R.L. Gulati, J. - The petitioner, Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha belongs to the U.P. Education Service. From July, 1963 to May, 1964, he was officiating as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh. During this period several complaints were received from the Commissioner, Kumaon and Utterakhand Division, Nainital, making certain serious allegations of moral turpitude against him. Some adverse reports also appeared against him in a local weekly newspaper called "Bigul". On receipt of these adverse reports, the case was handed over to the C.I.D. for investigation and ultimately the Government referred the case to the U.P. Administrative Tribunal. As a result of the investigation carried out by the C.I.D. it appeared that the petitioner had been indulging in sex with certain lady teachers when he went to visit their schools in his official capacity and had acquired a bad reputation on that account. It also transpired that in order to achieve that objective, he had been misusing his official position. 2. In July, 1966, the petitioner received a letter from the Assistant Deputy Director (Services) Directorate of Education, U.P. enclosing a charge sheet dated June 13, 1966, from Sri Ahmad Mirza, one of the Members of the U.P. Administrative Tribunal. In the course the hearing of the case commenced before the Administrative Tribunal which was constituted by Sri S. N. Mitra, as Administrative Member, Sri Ahmad Mirza, as judicial Member and Sri S. D. Pant, as the Assessor. In due course the Tribunal submitted its report to the Governor to the effect that the petitioner had been found guilty of the charge of personal immorality as also of failure to discharge his duties properly. In accordance with the recommendations made by the Tribunal, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated March 17, 1969. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal in this petition. 3. The charge-sheet served upon the petitioner containes as many as eight charges. Under each charge several incidents have been mentioned. All the eight charges, however, relate, to the main two charges of personal immorality and of failure to discharge duties properly. Under each charge documentary evidence and the gist of oral evidence upon which the charges were based were also communicated to the petitioner. It would be appropriate to reproduce the charges as set out in the order of the Administrative Tribunal. The charges were :- "Charge No. 1. You, Dr. Under each charge documentary evidence and the gist of oral evidence upon which the charges were based were also communicated to the petitioner. It would be appropriate to reproduce the charges as set out in the order of the Administrative Tribunal. The charges were :- "Charge No. 1. You, Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, during the period from July, 1963 to May, 1964, indulged in vicious habits relating to sex, had a bad reputation in this regard and misused your official position in furtherance of your above object by calling lady teachers to your places of stay during your official tours, even at odd hours of the night and persuaded some of them to accompany you on tours, as is evidenced by the following :- (a) You visited Baluwakote on January 20, 1964 stayed there in the P. W. D. Inspection House, till 10 a.m. on January 21, 1964, and during the said stay, you called Km. Motima, daughter of Sri Dhani Ram of Baluwakote, through one Gopal Dutt a teacher of the same place, first in the day and then in the night time and promised to get her admitted in class IV and to help her further in securing a certificate of class V also in the same year to enable her to get a job, and committed sexual intercourse with her. (b) You made five visits to Berinag, ostensibly to inspect the schools, i.e. on September 8 and 13, November 6, 1963, and February 11 and April 24, 1964 where you used to call Km. Bhagwati Verma, a lady teacher of Government Girls Primary School, Kanera at the place of your stay during day as well as night and developed illicit intimacy with her. Further you on November 8, 1963, took her to Pithoragarh from Berinag in your Government jeep. (c) You visited Munshiari on October 9 and 10, 1963 and while staying there in the Inspection House, you called Km. Maya Shah, Head Mistress, of Government Girls' Junior High School, Munshiari, and detained her till late in the night on October 9, 1963, and further when Sri M.C. Pant, Sub. Dy. Inspector of Schools, Munshiari, pointed out to you that it was getting late you allowed the said Km. Maya Shah to go back in the company of Sri S.C. Chaturvedi, Dy. Dy. Inspector of Schools, Munshiari, pointed out to you that it was getting late you allowed the said Km. Maya Shah to go back in the company of Sri S.C. Chaturvedi, Dy. Inspector of Schools, and Sri Mohan Chandra Pant, Sub-Dy. Inspector of Schools, but asked her to visit you again in the night. (d) On February 10, 1964, in the afternoon, while you were staying at the Government Girls' Primary School, Didihat, you were seen in flirting position with Km. Godawari, an Asstt. Lady Teacher of that School, inside your room with bolted doors and you detained her till about 9 p.m. on that date. Further, on February 11, 1964, i.e. the next day, you took her in Government jeep upto Thal, her native place. Further, during said stay at the Government Girls' Primary School, Didihat, between February 8 and 10, 1964, you called lady teachers of Government Girls Primary Schools, Doonagote and Didihat for inspection of the registers during day time but detained them till late in the night. You also sent for on the same occasion Km. Malti, Head Mistress, Government Girls' Primary School, Didihat, at odd hours of the night to which she protested. (e) On January 16, 1964, while you stayed in Government Girls' Primary School, Kanalichhina, you sent for Smt. Deepa Joshi, lady teacher of that school, at night but she declined to visit you on account of your bad reputation. (f) While you were staying in Forest Rest House, Berinag, between February 11 and 16, 1964, for inspection of Government Girls' Junior, High School, you called Smt. Kusum Bisht, Head Mistress of the said school, at odd hours of the night at the place of your stay but she refused to go to you in the night owing to your bad reputation. (g) While staying in P.W.D. Inspection House, Dharchula, from January 21 to 30, 1964 you called Smt. Deoki Devi, daughter of Shri Hari Ram, a teacher in District Board School, Kuti at Dharchula, in the night but she refused to go to you in the night on account of your unsavoury reputation. (h) During your posting at Pithoragarh, on several occasion, you asked Km. Munni Mashiwval, the Assistant Inspectress of Girls School, Pithoragarh to accompany you on tours but she refused to do so on account of your unbecoming attitude. (h) During your posting at Pithoragarh, on several occasion, you asked Km. Munni Mashiwval, the Assistant Inspectress of Girls School, Pithoragarh to accompany you on tours but she refused to do so on account of your unbecoming attitude. (i) Between February 1 and April 15, 1964 you gave a dinner to Km. Maya Shah at your residence at Pithoragarh and also sent for Km. Kamla Chilkuti, the only other guest for the said dinner at your residence, but Km. Kamla Chilkuti declined to come for dinner. You are hereby charged with `personal immorality' as defined in Rule 2 (e) of the U.P. Disciplinary proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 2. You Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, misused your authority and got one Km. Motima, daughter of Shri Dhani Ram of Baluwakote, admitted in class IV in Government Primary School, Nagtar, on February 1, 1964, although she had not passed even class III, as a motive or reward for her having indulged in sexual intercourse with you. You are hereby charged with failure to discharge your duties properly as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 3. You Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, on account of your illicit relations with Km. Bhagwati Verma, a lady teacher, of Government Girls Primary School, Kanera, misused your position and authority by passing a false T.A. Bill, prepared by her for the period from November 7, 1963 to November 13, 1963, in which she had shown her journey from Berinag to Pithoragarh partly on foot and partly by bus, on November 8, 1963, when in fact, you had yourself taken her from Berinag to Pithoragarh on that day in your Government Jeep. You are hereby charged with 'failure to discharge your duties properly' as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary proceedings (Administrative Tribunal). Rules, 1947. Charge No. 4. You, Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, on account of your lustful leanings towards Km. Maya Shah, Head Mistress, Government Girls Junior High School, Munshiari, misused your position and authority, on February 5, 1964, issued an appointement order No. 186/V-7/HC, Promoting the said Km. Rules, 1947. Charge No. 4. You, Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, on account of your lustful leanings towards Km. Maya Shah, Head Mistress, Government Girls Junior High School, Munshiari, misused your position and authority, on February 5, 1964, issued an appointement order No. 186/V-7/HC, Promoting the said Km. Maya Shah as temporary officiating Assistant Inspectress of Girls Schools, Pithoragarh, with effect from February 1, 1964, by superseding two senior and more qualified Head Mistresses eligible for officiating promotion. Further, in spite of disapproval of this arrangement by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Bareilly, vide her letter No. E-6739/V-S (AIG)/1963-64, dated February 13, 1964, you allowed Km. Maya Shah, to continue in the same capacity till April 15, 1964. You are hereby charged with `failure to discharge your duties properly', as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 5. You Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, on account of your being displeased with Smt. Deepa Joshi, a lady teacher of Government Girls, Primary Schools, Kanalichhina, who had refused to go to you on the night of January 16, 1964, in Government Girls' Primary School, Kanalichhina, where you were then staying misused your position and authority and transferred her to Deolali Bora, a place in the remote interior, whereupon she resigned from her post. You are hereby charged with `failure to discharge your duties properly' as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 6. "You Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, on account of the refusal of Smt. Kusum Bisht, Head Mistress, Government Girls Junior High School, Berinag, to visit you at odd hours of the night during your stay in Forest Rest House, Berinag, between February 11 and 16, 1964, made improper use of your authority and showed annoyance towards said Smt. Kusum Bisht, as a result of which she resigned from her post. You are hereby charged with `failure to discharge your duties properly' as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 7. You, Dr. You are hereby charged with `failure to discharge your duties properly' as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 7. You, Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh during the period from July, 1963, to December, 1963 on several occasions, asked Km. Munni Mashiwal, the Assistant Inspectress of Girls Schools, Pithoragarh, to accompany you on tours and, on her refusing to do so, made improper use of your authority and threatened to report against the said Km. Munni Mashiwal, and as a result of your unbecoming attitude, she resigned from her post. You are hereby charged with `failure to discharge your duties properly' as defined in Rule 2(d) of the U.P. Disciplinary proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Charge No. 8. You, Dr. Prithvi Nath Kulshreshtha, Principal, Government Inter College, Bahraich, while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Pithoragarh, between February 1, 1964 and April 15, 1964, misused your position and authority by utilising the Government jeep to bring Km. Kamla Chilkuti, Head Mistress, Government Girls Junior High School, Joonagote, Pithoragarli, to join dinner which you had arranged for Km. Maya Shah, Assistant Inspectress of Girls schools, Pithoragarh. You are hereby charged with `failure to discharge your duties properly' as defined in Rule 2 (d) of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947." After the evidence had been recorded, the Tribunal found that incidents mentioned in clause (a) of Charge No. 1 had been fully proved, whereas the incidents mentioned at clauses (c) and (d) of that charge had been partly proved. The rest of the incidents were not established. Likewise out of the remaining charges, Charges Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were found to have been partly proved that the rest of the charges were found not to have been proved. On the basis of the incidents that had been proved against the petitioner, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty both of personal immorality as well as of failure to discharge his duties properly. 4. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence in respect of each incident mentioned in the charge-sheet and it is not possible for us to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal against the petitioner should not be accepted. 4. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence in respect of each incident mentioned in the charge-sheet and it is not possible for us to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal against the petitioner should not be accepted. The findings are findings of fact and they are based upon the appraisal of the evidence and it is not possible for this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to appraise the evidence afresh and to upset the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In fact we have gone through the order of the Tribunal which is detailed and exhaustive one and are fully satisfied that the evidence has been correctly appraised by the Tribunal and those findings cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law. 5. The next submission of the learned counsel is that even from the incidents which have been proved, neither the charge of personal immorality nor of failure to discharge the duties can be said to have been established. At this stage it would be convenient to set out the relevant provisions of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, Rule 4 runs as follows : "4(1) . The Governor may refer to the Tribunal cases relating to an individual Government servant or class of Government servants or Government servants in a particular area only in respect of matters involving, (a) Corruption; (b) Failure to discharge duties properly; (c) Irremediable general inefficiency in a public servant of more than ten years standing; and (d) personal immorality. The Governor may refer to the Tribunal cases relating to an individual Government servant or class of Government servants or Government servants in a particular area only in respect of matters involving, (a) Corruption; (b) Failure to discharge duties properly; (c) Irremediable general inefficiency in a public servant of more than ten years standing; and (d) personal immorality. (2) The Governor may, in respect of a gazetted Government servant in his own request, refer his case to the Tribunal in respect of matters referred to in sub-rule (1)." Rule 2(e) defines "personal immorality" for the purpose of Rule 4 as follows : "2(2) "personal immorality" means vicious habits relating to drink, sex and gambling which reduce the utility of a public servant so as to damage Government or the official generally in public esteem." Clause (d) of Rule 2 defines "failure to discharge duties properly" to include such acts and omissions on the part of a Government servant as are likely to weaken the position and prestige of the Government of the Indian Union or the Government of Uttar Pradesh or which indicates an absence of loyalty and devotion to the Union of India or any feeling of loyalty towards any State outside the Indian Union." 6. Now, taking up the first charge relating to "personal immorality," the contention of the learned counsel is that according to the definition of that term as given in Rule 2 (e) , the charge of personal immorality can be said, to have been established only if it is found that the delinquent officer had acquired the vicious habit relating to drink, gambling and sex. He submits that in the instant case only stray incidents relating to sex have been proved and that there is no finding that the petitioner had acquired the vicious habit relating to sex. 7. The word "habit" is a word of every day use and its meaning is well understood. Stray and isolated acts do not constitute a habit which denotes a settled disposition or tendency to act in a certain way acquired by frequent repetition of the same act. However, a habit can only be proved by proving certain incidents. Whether or not a person has acquired a habit is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case and the concrete incidents that are proved. 8. However, a habit can only be proved by proving certain incidents. Whether or not a person has acquired a habit is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case and the concrete incidents that are proved. 8. Now, from a reading of the charge-sheet and the order of the Tribunal it becomes immediately clear that the petitioner had a morbid weakness for the opposite sex. In his capacity as the District Inspector of Schools, he visited various girls educational institutions and came into contact with several lady teachers and grown up girl students. He made advances towards some of the lady teachers and succeeded in gratifying his instinct of sex at some places and at others his attempts were either resisted or foiled. But one thing that stand out very clearly is that the petitioner did have the propensity to gratify his sexual lust whenever an opportunity came in his way, and because of his official position the opportunities were many. It is true that some of the incident attributed to him have not been proved, but what has been proved against him is enough, in our opinion, to establish a habit on the part of the petitioner of indulging in sex. 9. Now, from the findings recorded by the Tribunal it has been established that he had sexual intercourse with a girl student called Km. Motima during his stay at the P.W.D. Inspection House at Baluwakote between January 20 an 21, 1969. Likewise it has been proved that he had lustful leanings towards Km. Maya Shah, a Headmistress of the Government Girls Junior High School, Mushiari. He called her at the Inspection House of Munshiari on October 9, 1963 and detained her till late in the night. She was allowed to go home only at the intervention of Sri M.C. Pant, Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools, Munshiari. I has been further proved that he was seen in a flirting position with Km. Godawari, an Assistant lady teacher of the Government Girls Primary School, Didihat on February 10, 1964. He also made advances towards Km. Malti, Head Mistress, Government Girls Primary School, Didihat and wanted to call her at hours of the night to which she protested. It has also been proved that he had illicit connection with Km. Godawari, an Assistant lady teacher of the Government Girls Primary School, Didihat on February 10, 1964. He also made advances towards Km. Malti, Head Mistress, Government Girls Primary School, Didihat and wanted to call her at hours of the night to which she protested. It has also been proved that he had illicit connection with Km. Bhagwati Verma, a teacher of the Government Primary School, Kunera and by way of reward he passed her false T.A. Bills. It cannot be said that an inference of a habit relating to sex cannot be drawn from the incidents that have been proved against the petitioner. That such a habit is vicious goes without saying. 10. The word "vicious" is derived from the noun "vice" which means a moral fault or failing; specially immoral conduct or habit, as in the indulgence of degrading appetites; state of being given up to evil conduct or habit, depravity, wickedness, corruption. The word "vicious" when used as an adjective in respect of a habit denotes an immoral and degrading habit. The abnormal appetite for sex exhibited by the petitioner can easily be said to be a vicious habit. 11. The petitioner has referred to his brilliant academic record, but that fact does not in any way mitigate the charges which have been proved against him. In fact his sexual perversity is all the more deplorable because of his excellent academic record and the post he occupied. 12. That there were so many complaints against him and some adverse reports against him came to be reported in the press also shows very clearly that his misdeeds became widely known and created a public scandal. This state of affairs was bound to reduce the utility of the petitioner as a public servant and to damage the Government and the petitioner generally in public esteem. We are thus satisfied that the charge of personal immorality as defined in Rule 2 (e) had been fully established against him and he thus came squarely within the mischief of Rule 4. 13. We are thus satisfied that the charge of personal immorality as defined in Rule 2 (e) had been fully established against him and he thus came squarely within the mischief of Rule 4. 13. Now, the second charge relates to the petitioner's `failure to discharge his duties properly.' Clause (d) of Rule 2 deals with the `failure to discharge duties properly' and includes such acts and omissions on the part of a Government servant as are likely to weaken the position and prestige of the Government of the Indian Union or the Government of Uttar Pradesh or which indicates an absence of loyalty and devotion to the Union of India or any feeling of loyalty towards any State outside the Indian Union. This definition obviously is inclusive and not exhaustive. One of the duties of a Government servant is to follow the rules and regulations and to enforce the observance of discipline and compliance of rules and regulations by his subordinates. He must be impartial and must not show undue favour to any body. If a Government servant misuses his official position and abets or connives at improper and illegal acts, he can be said to be guilty of dereliction of duty. The Tribunal has found that in every case where the petitioner had developed an attachment for a woman, he misused his authority as an inducement or reward to the woman concerned. To some he showed undue favour by improper promotion or by permitting them to use the Government property in an unauthorised manner. In the case of Km. Motima, with whom he had sexual intercourse, he used his influence and authority to have her admitted in class, IV although she had not passed class III and had interrupted her studies for a longtime and in spite of the fact that the Head Master concerned had refused to admit her in class IV. It has also been found by the Tribunal that the petitioner promised to get her admitted in a higher class and also promised her a certificate of class V and to get her a job. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the admission of Km. Motima ultimately rested with the Head-Master and that according to the rules she could have been admitted in class IV, even though she had not passed class III. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the admission of Km. Motima ultimately rested with the Head-Master and that according to the rules she could have been admitted in class IV, even though she had not passed class III. That may be so, but the fact remains that the Head-Master had once refused admission to her and it was through the influence of the petitioner that eventually she got admission. 15. Similarly the petitioner promoted Km. Maya Shah to the post of officiating Inspectress of Girls School, Pithoragarh, by superceding two senior and more qualified Head-mistresses eligible for that post and in spite of the disapproval of this promotion by the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools, Bareilly, the petitioner allowed Km. Maya Shah to continue to occupy that post. Km. Godawari is another lady teacher with whom he was seen in a flirting position of a highly obscene nature and as a reward he took her in the Government jeep to her native place. This conduct on the part of the petitioner was certainly not permissible and was highly irregular. In the case of Km. Bhagwati Verma, with whom he had illicit relations, the petitioner passed a false T.A. Bill prepared by her for a journey from Berinag to Pithoragarh, while, in fact, the petitioner had himself taken her to Pithoragarh in the Government jeep. 16. All these incidents prove to the hilt that the petitioner had no acruples whatsoever and he freely misused his official position and did certain things which were improper and contrary to the rules. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner was guilty of failure to discharges his duties properly seems to be fully justified. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner then raised certain technical objection. One of the objections was that the Tribunal did not conduct the proceedings, in accordance with the law. According to him, the two Members of the Tribunal did not sit together at all the hearings. It is true that on some dates Sri Ahmad Mirza was absent because of his illness and the other Member Sri Mitra was also absent on some hearings because of his urgent duties in connection with relief work. According to him, the two Members of the Tribunal did not sit together at all the hearings. It is true that on some dates Sri Ahmad Mirza was absent because of his illness and the other Member Sri Mitra was also absent on some hearings because of his urgent duties in connection with relief work. It is however not denied that one of the members and the Assessor were always present on all the sitting and at the time of the hearing of the arguments the two Members and the Assessor were present. It may be mentioned here that before the hearing was concluded Sri Ahmad Mirza had been replaced by Sri S. Sibte Hasan Rizvi. But the fact that on certain hearings one or the other Member was absent does not in any way vitiate the proceedings before the Tribunal because of the provision contained in Rule 8-A, which runs as below :- "8-A (1) If a member of the Tribunal ceases at any time to be available for functioning as such, the remaining Member shall be deemed to validly constitute the Tribunal for the purpose of cases pending before it. (2) The replacement of a member of the Tribunal by a new Member shall not necessitate the reopening of proceedings denovo in any case or cases under enquiry at the time of such replacement." This rule affords a complete answer to the infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel. 18. Learned counsel also made a grievance of the fact that the petitioner was denied the assistance of a lawyer during his trial before the Tribunal. The answer to that contention is to be found in Rule 7 according to which a delinquent officer is not entitled as a matter of right to be represented by a counsel. 19. The last contention was that the Government did not consult the Public Service Commission before passing the order of dismissal. To that contention the answer is to be found in Rule 10, which provides : "Notwithstanding anything in Regulation of the Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations or any other Regulation, the Governor shall not be bound to consult the Public Service Commission on the Tribunal's recommendations and shall pass an order of punishment in the terms recommended by the Tribunal. 20. In the end, we find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed with costs.