JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri T.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the Food Corporation of India, opposite parties. 2. The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Grade-1 (Depot) in the Food Corporation of India, has assailed the order of dismissal issued on 16.3.2000 by the Senior Regional Manager and the order dated 14/18.7.2000 passed by the appellate authority, dismissing his appeal. 3. The petitioner was suspended vide an order dated 22.9.1999. He had assailed this order of suspension by filing writ petition No. 5612 (S/S) of 1999. The said writ petition (No.5612 (S/S) of 1999) has also been clubbed with this writ petition and both the petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. This Court has been pleased to stay the operation the order of suspension by passing an interim order on 28.10.1999. The Court was prima facie of the opinion that the order of suspension was not passed by the appointing authority (i.e. Regional Manager) of the petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of dismissal is wholly arbitrary and illegal; no proper formal and regular enquiry was held against the petitioner allowing him opportunity to meet his case effectively; the penalty has been imposed on mere speculation and it was a case of ‘no evidence’ against the petitioner. The penalty imposed is also disproportionate and does not commensurate with the gravity of the charges. The petitioner had been working as Assistant in the service of the Food Corporation of India since 1971 at the time of his dismissal. He was posted as Assistant Grade-I and functioning as Depot incharge, PCF Godown and Mandi-yard Godown at Powayan, District-Shahjahanpur at the relevant time i.e. during 1994-95 and 1995-96. In fact, an additional charge of PCF Godown, Unit Powayan was given to the petitioner, for which he was not prepared. No facility of an Assistant was provided to petitioner to manage three units, Godown of the Corporation in District Shahjahanpur. However, the petitioner managed to discharge his duties properly in PCF Godown units. After about 3-4 years, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge-sheet on 4.12.1998 under Regulation 58 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. However, the petitioner managed to discharge his duties properly in PCF Godown units. After about 3-4 years, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge-sheet on 4.12.1998 under Regulation 58 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that the petitioner while posted and functioning as Depot incharge PCF Godown and Mandiyard Powayan, District Shahjahanpur during 1994-95 and 1995-96 failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an FCI employee. It was further alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated 2898-10-1000 qtls. of wheat from PCF godown and Mandiyard CAP complex, Powayan, during the above said period. He has tried to hide this misconduct by showing the said quantity as storage loss ranging from 1% to 3.07%. The petitioner had committed this misconduct in connivance with Sri A.A. Wasti, TA II. He contravened the Regulations 31 and 32 read with 32A of the Regulations. The petitioner had submitted that it was not possible for a single person to look after all the three units simultaneously and to keep proper vigil on the affairs of each and every godown in his charge. However, he continued to manage the PCF godown unit at Powayan District Shahjahanpur. According to him, it was a covered godown, but was not a fit place for storage of foodgrains. The petitioner had brought this fact to the notice of Enquiry Officer and punishing authority. He had also placed a copy of the report of the committee dated 25.9.1992 before them but his defence was not considered by the Enquiry Officer and the punishing authority. The petitioner had himself written to the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Shahjahanpur, who had also reported on 1.7.1994, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition, that the said godown was not fit for storage of foodgrains. 5. The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court, the report of the above said committee and the letter written by the District Manager to the Joint Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Lucknow, which indicated that the losses in the stock had occurred due to storage of foodgrains in a most unscientific way. As per petitioner, due to high percentage of moisture, the godowns were unfit for storage of the foodgrains. As per petitioner, due to high percentage of moisture, the godowns were unfit for storage of the foodgrains. The petitioner had demonstrated before the Enquiry Officer that there was no negligence on his part. The godowns were not properly covered or protected. In fact, the bags of foodgrains were arranged, stored in open land and thereafter they were covered by canvas or tarpaulin. The committee of the technical staff of the Regional Office, Lucknow had also visited the PCF, godowns in Mandiyard to check up the correct position. This committee had also submitted the report that both the godowns were bad and there was likelihood of deterioration of the foodgrains stored therein. It also reported that there was non-availability of technical staff; proper staff etc. was not appointed. The report of this committee dated 5.8.1995 was also brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer and the same has been read in the Court. The District Manager taking note of this state of affairs made inspection and a specific order on 26.2.1996 regarding contents of the godown was issued on 8.7.1996 to the concerned authority of the Food Corporation of India for taking appropriate action. The petitioner had been apprising the appropriate authority regarding the condition of the godown and foodgrains stored therein. On receiving the charge-sheet, the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to supply him the relevant documents; some of these were cited in the charge-sheet and the other were required for submission of a proper defence. The petitioner has led the Court through the application submitted by him seeking supply of documents. 6. As per learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not supplied relevant documents; his applications were not dealt with by the Enquiry Officer and he had continued with the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry was fixed for 22.3.1999-24.3.1999 and 18.5.1999. The Enquiry Officer acted in haste while examining the prosecution witnesses. Without the supply the relevant documents, the petitioner was unable to meet the charges levelled against him. He has further submitted that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of preliminary enquiry were not supplied to him. 7. The petitioner was not informed as to which part of the charge was proposed to be proved through his witness or evidence and due to non-availability of necessary documents and copies of the statements taken earlier, he was prejudiced. 7. The petitioner was not informed as to which part of the charge was proposed to be proved through his witness or evidence and due to non-availability of necessary documents and copies of the statements taken earlier, he was prejudiced. The petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to make effective cross-examination of the witnesses. The petitioner has laid stress that the Enquiry Officer did not inform him the reasons for non-supply of the documents he asked for. His applications were not even dealt with by giving a reply to him. This is a serious lacuna in the departmental enquiry. A show cause notice was issued on 28.9.1999 requiring the petitioner to make a representation. Thereafter he submitted a detailed representation on 14.10.1999. making his comments on the Enquiry Officer’s report. The petitioner categorically submitted before the punishing authority/appointing authority that he was not afforded adequate and effective opportunity to assail the charges. There were no parameters to speculate as to what would be the loss under the circumstances then prevailing at the godowns situate at Powayan, District Shahjahanpur. Neither any staff was made available to the petitioner to maintain the godowns, nor the conditions of the godown were fit for storage of foodgrains, hence the losses occurred cannot be measured or compared with the standard of losses occurred in normal conditions. These material facts ought to have been taken into account by the punishing authority which has not been done and the petitioner was dismissed from services vide an order dated 16.3.2000. 8. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was also dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made detailed submissions before the Court. He has submitted that the punishing authority had mentioned all the questions raised by the petitioner but he did not deal with these questions in the light of the materials placed on record. The authority had merely mentioned the issues. It has not applied its mind and has not given any finding. The punishing authority after mentioning the points raised by the petitioner has relied on the Enquiry Officer’s report, without even considering the version of the petitioner. The punishing authority ought to have discussed various points, defence put forth by the delinquent official but it failed. The petitioner has categorically indicated in his replies, submissions that the godowns were not in proper condition; they were wholly unfit for storage of foodgrains. The punishing authority ought to have discussed various points, defence put forth by the delinquent official but it failed. The petitioner has categorically indicated in his replies, submissions that the godowns were not in proper condition; they were wholly unfit for storage of foodgrains. The losses have occurred due to natural causes, adverse weather conditions. The liability of the petitioner was only to receive bags of foodgrains, wheat and thereafter to issue the same from the stock. It was not the duty and responsibility of the petitioner to record moisture of the foodgrains received either at the time of issuing or at the time of receiving the same. The moisture is recorded by the quality control wing of the Food Corporation of India and not by the Depot wing to which the petitioner belongs. It is the duty of quality control wing or its officers to look after the moisture condition and they were responsible for preserving the quality of foodgrains. The preservation of quantity depends upon the preservation of quality. This fact has been admitted by one Sri D.K. Awasthi, Assistant Manager (Quality Control Prosecution witness No. 3) during his cross-examination in the departmental enquiry. 9. Sri D.K. Awasthi, Assistant Manager, Quality Control had admitted that the Food Corporation of India is having no norms/instructions for regularization of storage losses. He had admitted before the Enquiry Officer that if the quality control treatments are not provided timely, the quality would reduce as storage loss. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has led the Court through the findings of Enquiry Officer who had accepted that the quality control staff did not perform their duties. This point has not been considered or discussed in the Enquiry Officer’s report, nor the same find place in the final order of penalty. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the Enquiry Officer in his report has admitted that the prosecution has failed to produce any witness to prove the speculation of moisture contents at the time of issue of foodgrains. From the enquiry officer’s report, it was amply clear that this is a case of ‘no evidence’. The Enquiry Officer had failed to discuss the statements of Sri R.P. Verma, Assistant and Sri P.K. Gupta, Technical Assistant, in this regard. These two witnesses had stated that the moisture contents recorded at the time of receipt and issue of foodgrains were correct. The Enquiry Officer had failed to discuss the statements of Sri R.P. Verma, Assistant and Sri P.K. Gupta, Technical Assistant, in this regard. These two witnesses had stated that the moisture contents recorded at the time of receipt and issue of foodgrains were correct. This issue ought to have been considered and discussed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority also. The Enquiry Officer had also accepted that no additional staff was posted at the Depot and there could have been theft or loss at the place of storage. This also proves that there was no misappropriation of the stock by the petitioner. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no charge-sheet was given to the Assistant Manager Depot and the District Manager, Shahjahanpur. No punishment has been awarded against the other officer i.e. A.A. Wasti, Technical Assistant-2 who was also attached alongwith the petitioner though aspersions had been cast on his conduct. The storage loss statements were signed by Dr. Karan Singh, Assistant Manager (Depot), if there were some alleged regularities, he could have made remarks on the same. The petitioner had pointed out to the Enquiry Officer and the Punishing Authority that 1430 gunny bags were taken out of the PCF godowns Powayan, District Shahjahanpur. This clearly proves that storage conditions were improper and the said fact has been ignored. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has highlighted the fact that the Enquiry Officer had indicated in his report that Dr. Karan Singh, Assistant Manager (Depot) Shahjahanpur had stated during cross-examination that he was exercising supervisory control of the depot and had found no misappropriation of stock at any time. This material fact has been ignored by the Enquiry Officer and the Punishing Authority. At one stage, the Enquiry Officer in the last part of his report had almost exonerated the petitioner. However, the petitioner was charged with false allegations. The appellate authority had failed to appreciate the submissions made by the petitioner who was innocent and had been exonerated of the charges. It was further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment awarded by the Punishing Authority against the petitioner is too excessive and does not commensurate with the gravity of the charges levelled against him. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the principles of natural justice have been flagrantly violated. It was further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment awarded by the Punishing Authority against the petitioner is too excessive and does not commensurate with the gravity of the charges levelled against him. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the principles of natural justice have been flagrantly violated. The petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases in support of his submission that the principles of natural justice have to be followed while awarding major penalty against the delinquent employee and it is the duty of punishing authority to record reasons and consider the version of the delinquent employee before awarding a major penalty : (1) Union of India v. Madhusudan Prasad, 2004 SCC (L&S) 29. (2) Sher Bahadur v. Union of India and others, 2002 SCC (L&S) 1028. (3) Deokinandan Sharma v. Union of India and others, 2001 SCC (L&S) 1079. (4) Union of India v. K.A.Kattu and others, 2001 SCC (L&S) 8. (5) Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others, 1999 SCC (L&S) 429. (6) Ambika Prasad Srivastava v. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others, 2004(22) LCD 770. (7) Shobha Kant Chaturvedi v. Central Administrative Tribunal Additional. Allahabad Bench, Allahabad and others, 2003 (21) LCD 593. (8) Shafatullah v. Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi and others, 2002(20) LCD 733. (9) Govind Lal Srivastava v. State of U.P. and other, 2005(23) LCD 495. (10) Samiullah Khan v. State Road Transport Corporation and others, 2005(23) LCD 1435. (11) Sudhir Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2005(23) LCD 1542. and (12) Ayodhya Singh v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi and others, 2005(23) LCD 1101. 14. Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India, has resisted the writ petition. He has submitted that the order of dismissal and the appellate authority’s order are just, legal, valid and proper. There were charges of serious misconduct against the petitioner which required detailed investigation and enquiry. Accordingly, a formal, regular departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner which resulted in his dismissal from services. The petitioner while posted and functioning as (Depot) incharge PCF, godown and Mandiyard godown Powayan, District Shahjahanpur during the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 had failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a corporation employee. He had misappropriated 2898-10-1000 qntls. The petitioner while posted and functioning as (Depot) incharge PCF, godown and Mandiyard godown Powayan, District Shahjahanpur during the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 had failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a corporation employee. He had misappropriated 2898-10-1000 qntls. of wheat at the time of receipt and issue of wheat stock. This appears to have been done for personal gains and it had caused loss to the corporation. A charge-sheet was accordingly issued and the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the relevant provision contained in the Regulations. The petitioner was supplied all the relevant documents cited in the charge-sheet. It is incorrect to say that he was not supplied with relevant documents. It has been averred in the counter affidavit that all the necessary documents were supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner did not indicate as to what were the documents which were not supplied to him. The petitioner had not reacted in this regard in his reply to the charge-sheet. He could not indicate the relevance of the documents demanded by him after receipt of the charge-sheet. Several dates were fixed by the Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry. Witnesses of the prosecution were examined in presence of the petitioner and he was allowed opportunity to cross-examine them. Petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing at all the stages of departmental trial. The petitioner was an Assistant Grade-1, a responsible officer. He as Depot incharge was handling and managing the foodgrain stock entrusted to him. He was custodian of the stock and, as such, it was the responsibility of petitioner to maintain the stock and avoid misappropriation of the bags containing foodgrains. He was required to maintain proper records of the stock. The petitioner was responsible for losses caused to the Corporation. Both the authorities i.e. the punishing authority and the appellate authorities have passed reasoned and speaking orders. These authorities have appreciated the submissions of the petitioner. Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh learned Counsel for the Food Corporation of India has placed reliance of the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court of India, reported in 2005 SCC (L&S) 1108, U.P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. v. P.C. Chaturvedi and others, in support of his submission that a delinquent employee has to prove before the Enquiry Officer that what prejudice has really been caused to him by non-supply of the documents. Ltd. v. P.C. Chaturvedi and others, in support of his submission that a delinquent employee has to prove before the Enquiry Officer that what prejudice has really been caused to him by non-supply of the documents. It has not been shown as to how the non-supply of the documents has caused any prejudice to the petitioner in the present case. 15. In respect of appellate authority’s competence to issue the order of dismissal, the learned Counsel for the Food Corporation of India has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon. Supreme Court of India reported in 2001 SCC (L&S) 1979, Deokinandan Sharma v. Union of India and others; Food Corporation of India v. Sone Lal (2005) 3 SCC 11 : 2005(5) ESC 200 (SC) and 1999 SCC (L&S) 620, Food Corporation of India v. Padmakumar Bhuvan. 16. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. I have gone through the charge-sheet, memorandum dated 4.12.1998, by which formal departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. I have also seen the reply to the charge-sheet, enquiry officer’s report, notices of penalty and the order passed by the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal to the petitioner. 17. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner Sri V.S. Tiwari under Regulation 58 of the Regulations by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lucknow. It was alleged that he had contravened provision contained in Regulations 31. 32 read with 32-A of the Regulations. After completion of enquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. 18. The punishing authority had passed the final order taking into consideration the material on records have passed the order of dismissal on 16.3.2000. As far as, competence of Senior Regional Manager of Food Corporation of India to suspend and dismissed. I am satisfied that said authority was fully competent to do so as per powers given to such authority under Regulation 66 of Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1971. The provisions have been placed before the Court. 19. The record reveals that there were some material infirmities lacunas in holding of the departmental enquiry. The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet to the enquiry officer he has also submitted similar representation to the punishing authority, explaining to him that he was innocent and was not guilty of the charges. 19. The record reveals that there were some material infirmities lacunas in holding of the departmental enquiry. The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet to the enquiry officer he has also submitted similar representation to the punishing authority, explaining to him that he was innocent and was not guilty of the charges. This Court has also noted various submissions made by the petitioner during his arguments. The disciplinary authority/punishing authority has summarily dealt with the submissions made by the petitioner in following sentences : “The undersigned has gone through the charge sheet, inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, representation of charged official, prosecution and defence brief and relevant records of the case and circumstantial evidence dispassionately. It is found that charge against Shri V.S. Tiwari, AG. 1(D) has been established during the departmental inquiry proceedings concluded by Shri R.K. Sharma, Inquiry Officer. The charged official represented against the findings of Inquiry Officer which have also been looked into very carefully and nothing new has been brought out in his defence by charged official. The points raised in his representation are not at all convincing as it has been found that the moisture contents have been manipulated at the time of receipt during the month of April to June, 1993 which may not be more than 10%. Similarly, as per moisture percentage recorded in storage loss statement there should have been storage gain instead of storage loss of 1% to 1.3% in PCF Godown. Similarly, at Mandi Yard moisture contents has been manipulated by showing 9.2% to 11.7% during April to June. Moisture at the time of issue has been shown 9.5% during December, 95 to March, 96 while it could have been between 11% to 12%. Stocks in the stack No. C-1/5 was received during July with moisture percentage of 10.9% and issued during December, 1995/Jan., 96 with 11.6% moisture and loss is shown in stock to the extent of 2.35% instead of any storage gain. The MIRs have shown moisture contents from 11.2% to 11.7%. No made up bags were shown whereas huge quantity was issued after storage of about a year. The stock in stack No. open/29, open/38 and open/41 was received w.e.f. 21.5.1994 to 30.5.1994 and the moisture contents percentage of said stocks at the time of issue w.e.f. 17.2.1996 to 28.2.1996 have been shown 8.2% to 8.5%. No made up bags were shown whereas huge quantity was issued after storage of about a year. The stock in stack No. open/29, open/38 and open/41 was received w.e.f. 21.5.1994 to 30.5.1994 and the moisture contents percentage of said stocks at the time of issue w.e.f. 17.2.1996 to 28.2.1996 have been shown 8.2% to 8.5%. The storage loss has been shown 3.07%. During the month of February/March, 96 the moisture have been shown to be 8.1% to 8.2% in some cases. This is quite fictitious reporting as the moisture meters do not read below 8.5%. In view of this the loss sustained by FCI for which charges levelled against the charged official have been fully proved for such heavy misappropriation of stocks valuing Rs.11,65,036.60 Shri Tiwari deserves exemplary major penalty.“ 20. The disciplinary authority has not taken into account and considered the version of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer in his findings has come to the conclusion that prosecution was suspicious of the fact that the moisture conditions were wrongly recorded at the time of receipt during month April 1993 to June 1993. The delinquent employee, petitioner had categorically submitted in various replies that there was evidence on record favouring him that the moisture conditions were actually recorded at the time of receipt and the issue only. It was presumed by the authorities of Food Corporation of India that the moisture contents during April to June 1993 should be up to 10% but there was no proof of it. The enquiry officer has also noted that it was correct that in this case, no proof had been produced by the prosecution regarding moisture but there was cloudy weather even on the day at the time of receipt. Prosecution has based its conclusions on assumption, presumption and suspicion about wrong recording of moisture contents at the time of receipt and issue. Mere suspicion should not be allowed to take place of proof even in domestic trials. 21. The petitioner employee’s version, defence ought to have been considered by the punishing authority. A bare reading of the order of penalty reveals that disciplinary authority had based its decision on the Enquiry Officer’s report without taking into account the submissions, defence of the employee. His version should have been discussed, dealt with and findings ought to have been recorded before forming the opinion of dismissing him. A bare reading of the order of penalty reveals that disciplinary authority had based its decision on the Enquiry Officer’s report without taking into account the submissions, defence of the employee. His version should have been discussed, dealt with and findings ought to have been recorded before forming the opinion of dismissing him. The employee had tried to demonstrate before the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority that the godowns were not in proper condition. One godown at Powayan, District Shahjahanpur was an open godown covered by canvas and tarpaulin. He had categorically submitted in his representations that he brought these facts regarding the condition of the godown to the notice of the District Manager and other superior authorities from time to time. No action was taken by them to take preventive measures for proper storage of wheat. 22. As per petitioner, he was not responsible for showing any moisture percentage which was the basis of computation of the storage loss. In the present case, he was not allowed the opportunity of personal hearing before the appellate authority to enable him to clarify his case before the concerned authorities. 23. There is force in the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry officer was acting on his own and was being guided by the instructions of Manager, Vigilance (vide Enquiry Officer’s report). He should have applied his own mind. The petitioner had laid stress before the authorities of FCI that he had no concern with the recording of moisture percentage as the same was recorded by the Technical Assistant and not by the Depot staff. The petitioner had categorically submitted before the Enquiry Officer that he had not manipulated and pressurized the concerned technical assistant to submit a wrong report regarding moisture percentage. There was no evidence to prove this charge against the petitioner. No independent reasons have been recorded for arriving at the conclusion in respect of recording of moisture by the punishing authority and the appellate authority. Interestingly, the alleged accomplice Sri A.A. Wasti, Technical Assistant has been awarded a minor penalty of stoppage of the increments for a period of five years only. The petitioner has been dismissed from services while the other similarly circumstanced employees who were dealing with the recording of moisture contents were allowed to continue in the services. The petitioner has been singled out for awarding major penalty. The petitioner has been dismissed from services while the other similarly circumstanced employees who were dealing with the recording of moisture contents were allowed to continue in the services. The petitioner has been singled out for awarding major penalty. This fact should have been appreciated by the appellate authority before disposing of the appeal of the petitioner. The appellate authority has not properly dealt with the version of petitioner and has laid much emphasis on the case of the prosecution. As far as other grounds are concerned the petitioner had demanded 52 additional documents to enable him to submit his reply and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses out of 52 only 32 documents were supplied to him. The statements of witnesses recorded during course of preliminary enquiry were not supplied to him. It appears from record that the report submitted by the technical staff compromising of Technical Assistant Manager (quality control and Assistant Manager Depot) have been ignored while holding the enquiry. 24. There is no discussion by the punishing authority on these reports which defend the petitioner. The petitioner had cited several exemplars, instances relating to losses on these similarly situated Depots where much higher losses had occurred but the same were written of. The petitioner had requested the punishing authority and appellate authority to consider this point also. There is no findings in the order passed by the disciplinary authority and punishing authority as to how these points were dealt with. 25. The petitioner had demonstrated before the authorities that he was not provided with sufficient staff to manage the godown. The disciplinary authority had also not taken into account all the above points while forming its opinion to dismiss the petitioner. 26. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that proper opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner’s version was not properly dealt with and the order of dismissal has been passed with a predetermined mind. The penalty awarded to the petitioner also appears to be excessive in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner has been punished due to some technical lacunas in storing the foodgrains. It is an admitted case of the parties that the work of recording of moisture condition etc. is carried out by the quality control technical staff of the Corporation. 27. The petitioner has been punished due to some technical lacunas in storing the foodgrains. It is an admitted case of the parties that the work of recording of moisture condition etc. is carried out by the quality control technical staff of the Corporation. 27. It is noteworthy that the three reports recording the prevailing conditions in the godown submitted on 25.9.1992, 1.7.1993 and 5.8.1995 have been ignored by the punishing authority while drawing its conclusion. The petitioner had demonstrated before the authority that the open godown in Powayan, District Shahjahanpur was not suitable for foodgrains storage during rains. 28. The punishment awarded appears to be patently excessive. The petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as reported in (1998) 9 SCC 671 , State of Karnataka v. Nagraj, (1997) 7 SCC 463 , PCU of India v. G.Ganayuthan; (1989) 2 SCC 177 , PCU of India v. Permanand and (1998) 1 SCC 484 , Assistant Commissioner v. S.N. Parab. This Court has also in the case of Ran Pratap v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (17) LCD 149, made a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1983 SCC (L & S) 342 wherein it has been ruled as under : “..........that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 29. In view of the above, the writ petition No. 2719 (S/S) of 2000 is allowed and the order of dismissal dated 16.3.2000 and the order dated 14.07.2000 passed by the appellate uthority are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in the services. Other consequences shall follow. 30. However, in the circumstances of the case, it shall remain open for the appropriate authority to hold a de novo enquiry and pass appropriate orders. if they so desire, in accordance with law except the orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. 31. Since the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner has been quashed, the order of suspension dated 22.9.1999 challenged in the connected writ petition No. 5612 (S/S) of 1999 and merged in the order of dismissal is also quashed. The said writ petition thus also stands finally disposed of. Order Accordingly. ————