JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner, a dismissed Surveyor of the Department of agriculture of respondent State feels aggrieved by the order dated 22-9-1979 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing him from service following departmental Enquiry and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the same in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2. ) THE facts of the case relevant for purposes of this petition are that the petitioner while working as a Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Seoni was alleged to have committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code while on duty and was prosecuted for the same before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Seoni. The learned sessions Judge by his judgment dated 16-12-1969 found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and therefore, sentenced him to two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/ -. As a result of this conviction the petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 19-5-1970. It appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence before the High Court where it was the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1970. By its judgment dated 2-2-1971 (Annexure R-1) the High Court was of the view that the Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse. It however was of the opinion that it was not proved beyond doubt that the sexual intercourse was committed without her consent. In this view of the matter the High Court held that the case against the petitioner was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The petitioner was accordingly acquitted. As a result of the acquittal by this court, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 22-3-1973. The Disciplinary Authority, however felt that there was sufficient ground for taking departmental action against the petitioner and therefore, a charge-sheet dated 17-1-1974 was issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture alleging a conduct unbecoming of a government servant and indicipline (Annexure P. 3 ). The petitioner submitted his reply on 23-2-1974 to this charge-sheet and challenged the authority of the Deputy Director to act as Disciplinary Authority. It appears that his objection was found to be justified and hence by order dated 17-4-1974 (Annexure P-4) the said charge-sheet was cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply on 23-2-1974 to this charge-sheet and challenged the authority of the Deputy Director to act as Disciplinary Authority. It appears that his objection was found to be justified and hence by order dated 17-4-1974 (Annexure P-4) the said charge-sheet was cancelled. Thereafter, respondent Joint Director served the petitioner another charge-sheet on 1-7-1974, charging him with indiscipline and the conduct unbecoming of a Government servant by committing sexual intercourse with phulwantibai, a labourer during the course of employment. The petitioner denied these charges and demanded a Departmental Enquiry. The Joint Director thereafter appointed the Assistant Land Survey Officer as the Enquiry Officer for holding the enquiry into the charges. The Enquiry Officer by his report dated 22-4-1975 (Annexure p-3a) found the petitioner guilty of the charge. The respondent Joint Director acting on the aforesaid report served a show cause notice to enable the petitioner to submit his explanation to the proposed punishment of dismissal and after considering of the same dismissed the petitioner by order dated 19-9-1975. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid dismissal before the respondent Director challenging the authority and jurisdiction of the Joint Director to pass the order of dismissal. The respondent Director by his order dated 6-8-1976 (Annexure P-6) came to the conclusion that the Joint Director could not have dismissed the petitioner and therefore, allowed the appeal. The respondent Director, however, found that only show cause notice and subsequent proceedings were vitiated on this account. He, therefore, ordered that a fresh show cause notice be issued to the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, on 7-8-1976 a show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner submitted his reply. On consideration of the reply the impugned order dated 22-9-1979 has been passed dismissing the petitioner from service, (Annexure P-10 ). It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. ( 3. ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since his disciplinary Authority was the respondent Director charge-sheet issued by the Joint director and the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Joint Director could not form the legal base for the impugned order of dismissal. It is further submitted that the entire finding of guilt is based on the High Court judgment which could not be accepted as evidence even in the Departmental Enqiury and hence the impugned order was bad in law. It is further submitted that the entire finding of guilt is based on the High Court judgment which could not be accepted as evidence even in the Departmental Enqiury and hence the impugned order was bad in law. It is lastly submitted that even if facts alleged were accepted as true the same do not amount to any misconduct sufficient to warrant a disciplinary action. ( 4. ) BEFORE examining the correctness or otherwise of the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner it may be noticed that the order dated 6-8-1976 passed by the respondent Director cancelling the earlier order of dismissal passed by the Joint Director and directing issue of fresh show cause notice (Annexure P-6) is not under challenge in this petition. In fact, the aforesaid order has upheld the legality of the charge-sheet and the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. In case the petitioner felt that the charge-sheet and the inquiry proceedings were illegal as they were not initiated by the respondent Director, the petitioner should have approached this Court challenging the legality of the aforesaid order. In case the aforesaid order is accepted as legal and valid no fault could be found with the subsequent proceedings. The petitioner not having challenged the legality of the said order should be deemed to have accepted the same and will be estopped from challenging its legality after about 6 years. In spite of it, the legal aspect of the submission may be considered. ( 5. ) THE entire submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on rule 14 (2) (3) of the M. P. Civil Services (C. C. and A.) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). Rule 14 (2) of the Rules provides that in case the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for enquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct it may itself enquire into or appoint an authority to enquire into the truth thereof. Sub-rule (3) of this rule requires the Disciplinary Authority "to draw up or caused to be drawn up" a charge-sheet against the Government Servant and deliver or caused to be delivered the same to him. The Disciplinary Authority according to the Rules is the Authority who is competent to impose on a government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 10. The Disciplinary Authority according to the Rules is the Authority who is competent to impose on a government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 10. The schedule attached to the Rule which is referable to Rule 7, specifies the appointing authority and the authority having powers to impose penalty. The schedule mentions the respondent Director of Agriculture as appointing authority and authority competent to impose punishment on Exhibition Assistant surveyor which according to the petitioner is the relevant entry. The submission of the learned counsel is that there is no post of Exhibition Assistant Surveyor and hence the aforesaid entry should be treated as misprint and should be divided into two so as to read Exhibition Assistant and Surveyor as two separate categories. Even if it has to be accepted that the schedule wrongly mentions a post which does not exist, it will not be the jurisdiction of this Court to correct the aforesaid entry by dividing the same into two separate posts. Even if such an exercise is permissible it would not make any difference as the legal requirement of the rule remains substantially satisfied. In such a case the respondent Director would be the Disciplinary Authority in relation to surveyor and would be competent to initiate Departmental Enquiry and issue the charge-sheet. Rule 14 (2) and (3) of the Rules clarify that the Disciplinary Authority may either himself enquire into the truth of the imputation or appoint an authority to do the same in his behalf. Same is the requirement of sub-rule (3) of this Rule which permits the Disciplinary Authority to either draw up the charge or cause the same to be drawn up. What is required by these provisions is that a decision to hold the enquiry should be reached by the Disciplinary Authority so as to save the unnecessary harassment of the government servant. This requirement remains fully satisfied in the instant case as the respondent Director who admittedly is the Disciplinary Authority had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and has upheld the order of issuing the charge-sheet and appointing of the Enquiry Officer. The legal effect of the order dated 6-8-1976 (Annexure P-6) is that the respondent Director has adopted the charge-sheet and the enquiry proceedings as the basis for taking further action against the petitioner and hence legal defect, if any remains fully removed. The legal effect of the order dated 6-8-1976 (Annexure P-6) is that the respondent Director has adopted the charge-sheet and the enquiry proceedings as the basis for taking further action against the petitioner and hence legal defect, if any remains fully removed. What has to be seen in all such cases is the substance or meat of the matter and not the technicalities thereof. In such cases if the petitioner is able to show prejudice caused to him by the procedure adopted, this Court would certainly quash not only the resultant order but also the entire proceedings. In the instant case, however, neither any prejudice exists nor has been shown by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, it must be held that there was no defect whatsoever in the charge-sheet and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer. It must also be held that the defect, if any, stands removed by order dated 6-8-1976 (Annexure P-6) and since no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner his grievance in the matter is baseless and must be rejected. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied upon Fateh Singh vs. State of rajas than, 1978 (1) SLR 364 (Raj.), and Jagannath Mohapatra vs. Utkal University, 1979 (1) SLR 828 (Orissa), to support his aforesaid submission. The aforesaid cases differ on facts and therefore, do not help the petitioner. In none of those cases the disciplinary Authority had considered the matter independently and upheld the correctness of the proceedings as in the instant case. In view of this difference no support can be derived from the aforesaid cases. ( 7. ) THE second submission of the learned counsel that the Enquiry Officer could not have relied upon the findings recorded by the High Court is also, without any substance. The High Court while passing the order of acquittal against the petitioner has held that the petitioner has committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix during the course of employment. In spite of it, the High Court acquitted the petitioner as it was not sure that the said sexual intercourse was committed without her consent. The Enquiry Officer appears to have acted on the finding that the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix during the course of employment to hold the petitioner guilty of the misconduct. In spite of it, the High Court acquitted the petitioner as it was not sure that the said sexual intercourse was committed without her consent. The Enquiry Officer appears to have acted on the finding that the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix during the course of employment to hold the petitioner guilty of the misconduct. The submission of the learned counsel is that the Enquiry Officer should not have looked into the judgment of the High Court and should have recorded his own independent finding. The judgment of the High Court was produced before the Enquiry Officer and was a part of the record. The Enquiry Officer was under a legal obligation to decide the case on the basis of material on record and in that process was entitled to take into consideration the judgment of the Court. Though there is no law making the opinion of the High Court binding on the Enquiry Officer, the prudence requires that the finding so recorded should be given utmost respect and accepted The Supreme Court and this Court appear to be of the view that a finding recorded by the Criminal Court remains binding on the department and that is the reason why no departmental action is permitted on the same cause of action on which the government servant has been found not guilty by a Court of competent jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, it cannot be accepted that the Enquiry Officer acted illegally or took into consideration anything extraneous material while recording the finding of guilt against the petitioner. ( 8. ) THE last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if all facts alleged were to be accepted the same would not constitute misconduct, as such a misconduct is not specified in any statutory rule. Reliance has been placed on the supreme Court decision in A. L. Kalra vs. The Project and Equipment Corporation of india, AIR 1984 SC 1361 to support the submission. There is no substance in the argument. Reliance has been placed on the supreme Court decision in A. L. Kalra vs. The Project and Equipment Corporation of india, AIR 1984 SC 1361 to support the submission. There is no substance in the argument. The petitioner has been charged with act of indiscipline and a conduct unbecoming of a government servant It is not the petitioners case that the facts alleged in the charge do not amount to either an act of indiscipline or a conduct unbecoming of a government servant Indeed, the conduct of the petitioner in committing sexual intercourse with a woman worker while on duty can be nothing but an act subversive of discipline and conduct unbecoming of a government servant clearly, therefore, it is a case where facts alleged are covered by specific rule made in this behalf. The decision of the Supreme Court in A. L. Kalras case (supra) is therefore, of no assistance to the petitioner. In the said case the misconduct alleged was not covered by any of the provisions of the Standing Orders and hence the supreme Court held that it would not be open to the authorities to take action on such an allegation. ( 9. ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition fails and is dismissed. No orders as to costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.