JUDGMENT By the Court.—By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the State Government dated 28th February, 2002, Annexure 8 to this writ petition, by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 2. The petitioner is an Eye-Specialist. He was working as a Professor in the Meerut Medical College, Meerut. He was transferred from Meerut to Jhansi Medical College by order dated 4th June, 1997. The order of transfer was stayed by the High Court and the writ petition in which the interim stay was granted was dismissed on 5th March, 1998. On 19th April, 1998, the petitioner was relieved from Meerut. However, the petitioner did not report to Jhansi Medical College pursuant to the transfer order dated 7th October, 1999. The petitioner says that he was ill from 24th April, 1998 to 6th October, 1999 i.e., a period of 1½ years. However, this averment of illness of 1½ year period made in paragraph 7 and 8 of the writ petition does not mention the nature of illness, which could last for 1½ years. 3. It appears that there was a complaint against the petitioner by Dr. Usha Sharma, who was the Principal of the Meerut Medical College, alleging that the petitioner was indulging in private practice at Meerut and was deliberately avoiding receiving of letters sent by the Principal. 4. A charge-sheet for departmental inquiry was issued to the petitioner on 27th July, 1999. The State Government appointed Dr. Usha Sharma as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner did not participate in the inquiry, which proceeded ex-parte and the services of the petitioner were terminated on 5th July, 2000. 5. On 24th November, 2000, a writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Lucknow Bench of this Court was allowed by a Division Bench, the termination order dated 5th July, 2000 was set-aside and, because the termination was not quashed on merits but because of technical defects, therefore, a direction was issued to hold inquiry afresh. 6. Pursuant to that order of the Lucknow Bench, a fresh charge-sheet dated 21st April, 2001 was issued to the petitioner, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure 3 to this writ petition. 6. Pursuant to that order of the Lucknow Bench, a fresh charge-sheet dated 21st April, 2001 was issued to the petitioner, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure 3 to this writ petition. The substance of the charges is that the petitioner was doing private practice at Meerut in violation of Government Orders because of which he avoided joining at Jhansi, pursuant to his transfer order and also refused to accept the Government Orders sent to him by the Principal of the Medical College, Meerut. It was also alleged that the petitioner unauthorisedly signed the attendance register despite being absent unauthorisedly from service and then carried away the attendance register. 7. The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet. A copy of the petitioner’s reply dated 15th May, 2001 is annexed as Annexure 4 to this writ petition. In the reply, the petitioner alleged that a Nursing Home known as “Shashi Eye Center” was established by the petitioner for his son, who has also become an eye-specialist. 8. It was specifically stated in that reply that the petitioner never carried on any medical practice at that clinic/nursing home called “Shashi Eye Center”. The petitioner further said that the advertisement of Shashi Eye Center published in the local daily Newspaper “Amar Ujala” dated 27th May, 1995 was not given by him, who and why gave that advertisement to the Newspaper was not known to the petitioner. The petitioner also said that he did private practice and issued prescriptions filed as evidence in the inquiry during the period when the ban of private practice was stayed by the High Court. Further, even this private practice was admittedly not done at the Shashi Eye Center, because of the specific statement of the petitioner referred above that he never did any medical practice at the Shashi Eye Center as referred above. 9. It has been found that the son of the petitioner Dr. Aman Sood completed his education in 1999. Before that he was studying in Delhi and, therefore, till 1999 there was no question of the petitioner’s son working at the Shashi Eye Center in Meerut. Even the petitioner does not say so. The petitioner also does not say that as to who was carrying on medical practice at the Shashi Eye Center. An advertisement in a Newspaper is not published for free. Even the petitioner does not say so. The petitioner also does not say that as to who was carrying on medical practice at the Shashi Eye Center. An advertisement in a Newspaper is not published for free. In absence of any better explanation, it is obvious that no other person would spent money to issue an advertisement for advertising the Shashi Eye Center on 27th May, 1995. 10. While examining such matters of flagrant violation of transfer orders by the doctors in Government service for monetary benefit by way of private practice at the station from which they have been transferred, seeking frivolous and fictitious medical leave for 1 ½ year without specific illness, which could have lasted for such a long time, reckless indiscipline by Government servants should not be viewed, especially in a discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on hyper-technicalities. We are of the view that more wholesome view should be taken of these matters. As already stated above, upon the admissions made by the petitioner himself in his reply to the charge sheet, the falsehood of the case set-up by the petitioner is absolutely clear. He had established a Nursing Home, which obviously costs a lot of money, and which money would not be invested unless returns were forthcoming. The petitioner says that he did not carry on medical practice from that Nursing Home, admittedly his son was studying in Delhi till 1999 and, therefore, the son also could not have carried on practice at that Nursing Home till 1999. The petitioner does not give the name of any other doctor whose assistance was being taken to run the Nursing Home from 27th May, 1995 till 1999, when his son was in a position to work at that Nursing Home. In the circumstances, if the Enquiry Officer has found the petitioner guilty of carrying on private practice, the finding in the above circumstances would not call for any interference by this Court on technicalities. 11. The petitioner argues that the report of the Superintendent of Police regarding the petitioner carrying on private practice was not furnished to the petitioner with the charge-sheet and, therefore, the finding of the Enquiry Officer is vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice. 11. The petitioner argues that the report of the Superintendent of Police regarding the petitioner carrying on private practice was not furnished to the petitioner with the charge-sheet and, therefore, the finding of the Enquiry Officer is vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice. Even if we discard that evidence, the report of the District Magistrate was furnished as part of the charge-sheet with regard to the same fact of private practice. Moreover, the circumstances, which we have set out above corroborate the report of the District Magistrate and the circumstances are based upon the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet and the reply of the petitioner to that charge-sheet. Therefore, the non-furnishing of the inquiry report or the alleged lack of oral evidence at the inquiry does not vitiate the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry to an extent to which this Court would be justified in interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. So far as the violation of the transfer order is concerned, the period from 19th April, 1998 till 7th October, 1999 is 1½ years and, we are not satisfied, in absence of any particulars about the illness that such an excuse put forward by the petitioner carries any credibility so as to require a more detailed inquiry by the Enquiry Officer. 1½ year is a period too long for any normal illness to last. Apparently, this excuse about illness is a very lame excuse to avoid the transfer order from Meerut to Jhansi so that the petitioner could continue to operate his Nursing Home i.e., Shashi Eye Center at Meerut. 13. Having regard to the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the case does not call for any interference in our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The writ petition is dismissed as above. ————