ORDER G.P. SINGH, J. 1. The petitioner Bhagwati Prasad Shrivastava, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge the order of the State Government dated 9.1.1973 by which he has been reverted from the post of Professor Class I to the post of Assistant Professor Class II. In 1967-68 the petitioner was posted as Assistant Director of Public Instructions. School matting of the value of about Rupees sixteen lacs was purchased by the Education Department through the Director, Public Instructions in that year from M/s Rajkishan Gupta of Gaziabad. There were many irregularities in the purchase of school matting. The State Government framed a number of charges against M.H. Rao, Secretary, Education Department. B.L. Vijayvargiya, Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Smt. F. Choudhary, Director of Public Instructions, B.L. Goyal, Divisional Superintendent of Education, Bhopal and the petitioner. The inquiry against these officers was entrusted to Shri V.R. Newaskar, a retired Judge of the High Court, who was authorised to hold a joint inquiry on the charges against these officer. Later on the inquiry against M.H. Rao and B.L. Vijayvargiya was separated as Rao happened to be an I.A.S., officer and was governed by different rules. In the joint inquiry against Smt. F. Choudhary, B.L. Goyal and the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer held that certain charges were proved. The report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Government. After issuing the requisite show cause notice and after obtaining the advice of the Public Service Commission, the Government passed the impugned order reverting the petitioner. 2. To understand the nature of the charges and the controversy in this petition, it is necessary to State certain facts. Out of the expected saving in the budget for the financial year 1967-68, the State Government sanctioned a sum of Rupees twenty lacs for the purchase of school matting, black-boards buckets etc. Out of this amount, Rs. 3.2, lacs were allotted to Tribal Welfare Department and Rs. 16.80 lacs to the Education Department. The proposal for the sanction of this amount was made towards the end of the year 1967, but the actual sanction by the Government was made on 13th February 1968. This sanction was slightly revised on 6th March 1968. The purchase was directed to be made in accordance with the Store Purchase Rules. 16.80 lacs to the Education Department. The proposal for the sanction of this amount was made towards the end of the year 1967, but the actual sanction by the Government was made on 13th February 1968. This sanction was slightly revised on 6th March 1968. The purchase was directed to be made in accordance with the Store Purchase Rules. It appears that the bulk of the amount sanctioned was to be utilised for the purchase of school matting. In anticipation of the sanction of the Government, a Central Purchase Committee was constituted for making purchases. This committee consisted of three members, viz., the Education Secretary or his nominee, the Finance Secretary or his nominee and the Director of Public Instructions. A tender notice dated 1st February 1968 was issued as directed by the D.P.I., inviting tenders for 6½ lac meters of school matting. These tenders were opened and scrutinized on 16th February 1968. The Purchase Committee approved the sample and rate (Rs. 1.35 per meter) of M/s Rajkishan Gupta of Gaziabad and their tender was accepted. Further, on the suggestion of the D.P.I., the following decision was also taken:– "In view of the urgent requirements of Tat-Patti for schools and lack of time at our disposal, it is proposed by the Director of public Instruction that maximum utilization of the allotment available can be ensured if the time likely to be consumed in transportation of Tat-Pattis to the 9 Divisional Head–quarters is saved by allowing a senior officer of the department to reach the factory godown of the firm, check the material with the help of the sample before it is despatched, take possession of the supply and get it despatched to the 9 Educational Divisions provided that the firm bears the extra cost of transport and expenses of delivery at the 9 Educational Stores as per conditions of the tender. This will meet the usual audit objection against making payments before taking possession of the goods. The proposal was accepted by the Committee, as it would also ensure the quality of supply and avoid lapses of the amount on account of likely rejections at the Divisional level and consequential delay in payment." Consequent to the acceptance of tender of M/s Rajkishan Gupta, an order was placed on 17th February 1968 for supply of 6½ lac meters of school matting. Another order for supply of additional five lac meters of school matting was placed by the D.P.I. on 20th March 1968 with M/s Rajkishan Gupta without inviting fresh tenders. Goyal (D.S.E.) was sent to Calcutta by the D.P.I. to verify the stock after examining the same and to send intimation to the D.P.I. after verification. On 27th March 1968 the petitioner put up a note (Annexure H) stating that Goyal was sent with instructions to go to the place of the suppliers for verifying whether the goods were available according to the sample and to send intimation after checking. The note solicited information whether any intimation was received from Goyal in that behalf: On this note, the D.P.I. made an endorsement to the effect that Goyal informed her on telephone as also by a telegram that he had checked all the school matting available in the Mills, but there was some difficulty in transporting the goods due to strike, therefore, after giving the required certificates the amount of the bills be withdrawn in form of drafts but actual payment be made after receipt of the goods in different divisions. On 27th March 1968 itself the D.P.I. prepared a note in which she first quoted the decision of the Purchase Committee which we have earlier reproduced and then stated as follows:– "In accordance with this decision, a senior officer Shri B.L. Goyal DSE was directed to proceed to the source of supply (Kharda Mills, Calcutta) to check up the stock position ready for dispatch to the different divisional head-quarters as per quantity indicated in the supply order, A telegram (copy placed below) has been received from him and in addition to this, he had informed me on the telephone that he has taken charge (stock) of the quantity and as soon as facilities are available and the situation in the town comes to normal the quantity of the order will be despatched in his pre3ence at the cost of the dealer. In view of this, the bills of the supply to the different divisional headquarters will be passed and money drawn before 31.3.1968 and kept in safe custody in the form of bank-draft which will be released to the dealer when the material actually reaches the 9 Educational stores, as per conditions of the tender. This is for your kind information. In view of this, the bills of the supply to the different divisional headquarters will be passed and money drawn before 31.3.1968 and kept in safe custody in the form of bank-draft which will be released to the dealer when the material actually reaches the 9 Educational stores, as per conditions of the tender. This is for your kind information. Note: The Enquiry Officer has found that the word "charge" was scored out and the word 'stock' was substituted in its place No. finding has been given as to when it was done. This note was sent for information to the Education Secretary and also to the Minister for Education and was seen by them on 27th and 28th March 1968. It appears that the school matting of the value of Rs. 44,524.35 only was actually received in Bhopal Division within 31st March 1968 and the rest of the matting was received thereafter in April, May and June. The total amount paid to the suppliers was Rs. 15,52,500/-. The bills of the suppliers which were eighteen in number were submitted by them before 27th March 1968 and the money was withdrawn on these bills by the D.P.I. The petitioner had made endorsements on these bills on 27th March 1968 as under:– "Certified that the purchase has been made in accordance with the Store Purchase Rules." 3. The Enquiry officer found that the tender notice was only for 6½ lac meters of school matting and this entire quantity was covered by the first order, and that the second order for supply of five lac meters of matting was placed without inviting fresh tenders. It was also found that the decision taken in the committee's meeting of 16th February 1968 was merely to avoid delay in transportation of the goods and to authorise an officer to go to the place where the goods were kept by the suppliers for dispatch so that they may be verified then and there and taken possession of by him and despatched before 31st March 1968. It was further found that Goyal was sent not in accordance with that direction to take charge or possession of the goods, but merely to ascertain the stock position of the school matting ready for delivery and scrutinize the goods meant for delivery towards the contract. It was further found that Goyal was sent not in accordance with that direction to take charge or possession of the goods, but merely to ascertain the stock position of the school matting ready for delivery and scrutinize the goods meant for delivery towards the contract. It was also held that Goyal did not take possession or charge of the goods and that he did not make any careful or bona fide scrutiny of the goods either as regards its quality or quantity. It was further held that M/s Rajkishan Gupta was a fictitious firm and the real suppliers were D.P. Agrawal and Brothers who submitted the tender, obtained orders and received payments in the assumed name of M/s Rajkishan Gupta. 4. It is now convenient to state the charges that were leveled against the petitioner in the inquiry. The charges were as follows:– "Charge No.1: He endorsed certificate on 27.2.1968 with reference to 11 bills in respect of school–matting supplied to Bhopal Division to the effect that the purchase had been in accordance with the Store–purchase Rules when in fact major part of the supply was received in Bhopal subsequent to that date and was not in accordance with the sample. In this way he abetted the withdrawal of the amounts of those bills contrary to the provision of the rules and thereby committed grave misconduct in discharge of his duties. "Charge No.2: He endorsed false certificates on the 11 bills in respect of school matting which had been supplied to Bhopal Division without properly scrutinizing the same. The meaning of such certificate was that the goods had been received in accordance with sample and in proper condition when in fact major part of the goods had not been received on the date of certification and the goods which was received was not in accordance with the sample. Thus he misused his position and committed grave misconduct in discharge of his duties. Thus Shri Bhagwati Prasad Shrivastava, Assistant Director of Public Instruction had failed to carry out properly his duties and committed serious misconduct. He consequently, has rendered himself liable for a disciplinary proceeding on the basis of the above charges. Thus he misused his position and committed grave misconduct in discharge of his duties. Thus Shri Bhagwati Prasad Shrivastava, Assistant Director of Public Instruction had failed to carry out properly his duties and committed serious misconduct. He consequently, has rendered himself liable for a disciplinary proceeding on the basis of the above charges. The Enquiry Officer found that there was a mistake in these charges in that the total number of bills were 18 and not 11 and that these bills did not relate only to Bhopal Division but to all the nine divisions. The bills relating to Bhopal Division were only two. The Enquiry officer, however, observed that no prejudice was caused because of this inaccuracy as the petitioner was apprised of the fact that there were 18 bills when his explanation was taken. It appears that in the inquiry the petitioner took the stand that he endorsed the certificates on the basis of the note of D.P.I. dated 27th March 1968 that Goyal had sent information that he had taken charge of the goods. The Enquiry Officer held the certificates to be incorrect on two grounds. The first ground is that as the purchase of five lac meters of school matting was not made by inviting tenders, the purchase made was contrary to the Store Purchase Rules. In this respect the finding is as follows:– "I am, therefore, of opinion that Shri Shrivastava had endorsed incorrect certificates upon the bills referable to the second order of five lac meters with the knowledge that in the case of that order no tenders had been invited in violation of rule 3 of Schedule V of M.P. Financial Code. Vol. II." The second ground on which the certificates were held to be wrong was that such certificates are to be endorsed after receipt of the goods and not before. As regards the defence of the petitioner that he made the endorsements on the basis of the note of the D.P.I. that Goyal had taken charge of the goods, the Enquiry Officer said that in the original the word "charge" was scored out and in its place the word "stock" was substituted. As regards the defence of the petitioner that he made the endorsements on the basis of the note of the D.P.I. that Goyal had taken charge of the goods, the Enquiry Officer said that in the original the word "charge" was scored out and in its place the word "stock" was substituted. The Enquiry Officer further held that even assuming that this change was not there when the petitioner saw the document, yet in the absence of any justification on the basis of personal knowledge about the receipt of goods he ought not to have acted on the basis of the note of the D.P.I. The Enquiry Officer's finding on this point is worded as follows:– "The original of P–8 indicates that the word 'charge' is scored and in its place the word 'stock' substituted. Even assuming that when Shri Shrivastava saw the document the change was not there yet in the absence of any justification on the basis of personal knowledge about the receipt of goods he ought not have acted on what had been mentioned in the note by D.P.I. and read by him." On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner's conduct "in making the aforesaid endorsements on 18 bills was improper both because it was made with the knowledge that in the case of second order no tenders had been invited and also because he had no personal knowledge about the receipt of the goods referable to these bills." It was further held that these certificates were endorsed by the petitioner to facilitate improper withdrawal of the sanctioned amount in order to prevent it from lapsing, though it was not done to cause any loss to the Government. 5. Rule 97 of the Treasury Code provides that bills presented in support of payments for purchases of stores shall be accompanied by a certificate that the articles detailed in the vouchers have been actually received. This rule also provides for a further certificate of the nature as endorsed by the petitioner on the bills that the rules relating to the purchase of stores in Appendix 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Financial Rules have been strictly observed. This rule reads as follows:– "397. This rule also provides for a further certificate of the nature as endorsed by the petitioner on the bills that the rules relating to the purchase of stores in Appendix 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Financial Rules have been strictly observed. This rule reads as follows:– "397. If not provided otherwise by departmental regulations, bills presented in support of payments for purchases of stores shall be accompanied by a certificate that the articles detailed in the vouchers have been actually received and entered in the stock register. A reference to the page number of the stock register in which such supplies or stores have been entered, should be given by the drawing officers on the bills of the suppliers, invoices etc. It should also be certified that their quantities are correct and their quality good, that the rates paid are not in excess of accepted or market rates and that suitable notes of payment have been made in the idents and invoices concerned to prevent double payment. The authority, unless it is a general one, under which the purchase is made, shall also be quoted, In addition to the above certificates a further certificate that "the rules relating to the purchase of stores prescribed in Appendix 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Financial Rules (Revised) have been strictly observed" should be furnished by the drawing officers in support of every charge on account of purchase of stores." 6. As stated earlier, the Enquiry Officer noted that the charges against the petitioner were inaccurate in the sense that they related to 11 bills of the Bhopal Division, whereas only two bills were of Bhopal Division and in all there were 18 bills. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty in respect of all the 18 bills. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner on the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report does not refer to this discrepancy between the charges and the findings and states that charges framed against the petitioner have been held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer Similarly, the final order passed by the Government reverting the petitioner also refers to the charges as originally framed without making any reference to the inaccuracy as pointed by the Enquiry officer. Technically, therefore, there is no finding of the Government that the certificates on the 18 bills endorsed by the petitioner were false. Technically, therefore, there is no finding of the Government that the certificates on the 18 bills endorsed by the petitioner were false. The finding is only this that the charges as framed against the petitioner were found to be true that is to say the endorsements made on the 11 bills relating to Bhopal Division are incorrect. Now such a finding is obviously wrong because as stated by the Enquiry Officer, only two bills related to Bhopal Division. All this at least shows that the officers who prepared the show cause notice and the final order on behalf of the Government did not carefully read the finding of the Enquiry Officer and did not appreciate the discrepancies pointed out by him. 7. However, we will proceed on the assumption that the charges as laid related to 18 bills of nine divisions and not only to 11 bills of Bhopal Division. A careful reading of the charges along with the statement of imputations of misconduct and the statement of relevant facts accompanying the charges will show that the charge is really one that the certificates were false, inasmuch as the major part of the supply was received subsequent to the date of the certificates and was not in accordance with the sample. This was also realised by the Enquiry Officer who also held that the charge is really one. The first ground on which the Enquiry Officer held the charge or charges to be proved against the petitioner is that the petitioner knew that tenders were not invited for the second order of five lac meters and therefore, the certificate that the purchases were made in accordance with the Stores Purchase Rules was incorrect, The difficulty in accepting this finding is that this is not the charge against the petitioner. There is no hint whatsoever either in the charges or in the accompanying statement of the imputations of misconduct and the statement of relevant facts that the petitioner was being charged for endorsing the certificates because tenders had not been invited for the second order of five lac meters of school matting. The charges against the petitioner were leveled on the sole ground that the certificates were endorsed by him before receipt of the goods. The charges against the petitioner were leveled on the sole ground that the certificates were endorsed by him before receipt of the goods. The Enquiry Officer also realised this difficulty and observed that "it is true that the substantial charge against Shri Shrivastava holds him responsible on the ground that the certificate in question was endorsed by him although the good had not been received on that date and that it was not in accordance with the sample." 8. Under Rule 14(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant, the disciplinary authority has to draw up or cause to be drawn up–(i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge and (ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain a statement of relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant and a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained. In the instant case neither the charges nor the statements accompanying the charges show that the Government intended to make the petitioner liable for endorsing certificates on the ground that the goods were purchased without inviting tenders in respect of the second order of five lac meters. It was, therefore, not open to the Enquiry Officer to hold the petitioner liable on the ground that no tenders were invited for the second order and therefore, the certificates were false. The observance of Rule 2, contained in Appendix 5 of the Financial Code, which requires that tenders shall be invited for purchase of articles can be dispensed with by the Government in exercise of its power under rule 14, which authorises the Government to sanction departure from the rules in cases in which departure is in the public interest. Had there been a specific charge against the petitioner that certificates endorsed by him were false for the reason that fresh tenders under rule 2 were not invited, he might have taken the defence that the Government dispensed with the observance of that rule. Had there been a specific charge against the petitioner that certificates endorsed by him were false for the reason that fresh tenders under rule 2 were not invited, he might have taken the defence that the Government dispensed with the observance of that rule. He may have relied in that connection upon the circumstance that the fact that five lac meters of matting had further been purchased from the same dealer was brought to the notice of the Secretary, Education and the Minister for Education on 27th March 1968 by the D.P.I. Be that as it may, we are of opinion that the Enquiry Officer was not correct in holding the petitioner liable on the charge which was not hinted in the charge-sheet or in the statement of facts accompanying it. 9. As regards the finding that the certificates were incorrect also for the reason that they should not have been endorsed before receipt of the goods, the petitioner had relied upon the note prepared by the D.P.I. in which she had recorded that the goods had been taken charge of by Goyal (D.S.E.) at Calcutta. The Enquiry Officer remarked that the said note showed that the word "charge" had been scored out and the word "stock" was substituted in its place. The Enquiry Officer, however, did not decide as to whether when the petitioner saw the note on 27th March 1968 the substitution had been made, The case of the Government as presented by the presenting officer during the course of the inquiry was that the word "charge" had at a much later stage been substituted by the word "stock". Indeed, the presenting officer filed a photostate copy of the note where there was no substitution. The enquiry Officer did not decide this controversy. Without deciding it, the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner responsible on the ground that "in the absence of any justification on the basis of personal knowledge about the receipt of goods he (petitioner) ought not to have acted on what had been mentioned in the note by the D.P.I. and read by him." We find it very difficult to appreciate this reasoning. It was wholly impracticable, if not impossible, for the petitioner who was at Bhopal to ascertain personally whether Goyal had taken charge or possession of the goods at Calcutta. It was wholly impracticable, if not impossible, for the petitioner who was at Bhopal to ascertain personally whether Goyal had taken charge or possession of the goods at Calcutta. The petitioner was a subordinate of the D.P.I. The petitioner was bound to follow the instructions of the D.P.I. unless he knew them to be illegal. The D.P.I. directed the petitioner to endorse the necessary certificates for drawing the money. The D.P.I. stated in writing in the note meant also for information of the Secretary, Education and the Minister for Education that Goyal had informed her on phone and by telegram that he had taken charge of the goods. There was no reason for the petitioner to suspect the correctness of the note prepared by the D.P.I. and he as a subordinate, was bound to follow the instructions by endorsing the necessary certificates. It is to be noted that certificates that goods have been received, required, by the first part of rule 397 of the Treasury Code, had been endorsed on the bills by other officers and not by the petitioner. The certificates of the nature endorsed by the petitioner come under the second part of rule 397. The rule does not provide that certificates required under the second part should be furnished by the drawing Officer only after gathering personal knowledge that the goods have been received. In the absence of any such requirement, it is clearly an apparent error of law to hold that the petitioner should have endorsed the certificates only on the basis of personal knowledge and not on the basis of information received by him from the note of the D.P.I. The finding of the Enquiry Officer in this respect proceeds upon an apparent misconstruction of rule 397 and cannot be supported. 10. The report of the Enquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him, which report has been accepted by the Government, thus suffers from two defects: First, that the report holds the petitioner guilty of a charge which was not leveled against him and which he had no opportunity to meet and secondly, that it proceeds upon a misconstruction of rule 397 which is an apparent error of law. The order of reversion passed on the basis of the said report cannot, therefore, be sustained. 11. The petition is allowed. The order of reversion passed against the petitioner is quashed. The order of reversion passed on the basis of the said report cannot, therefore, be sustained. 11. The petition is allowed. The order of reversion passed against the petitioner is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs of this petition. The amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.