Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1106 (ALL)

Bansh Narayan Vishwakarma v. State of U. P.

2008-05-22

SABHAJEET YADAV

body2008
JUDGMENT : Sabhajeet Yadav, J. By this petition, the petitioner has sought relief of writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 2.7.2003 and 26.6.2006, contained in Annexures-17 and 19 of the writ petition. By order dated 2.7.2003 after holding disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner three penalties have been simultaneously inflicted upon him whereby he has been reduced in rank from time scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to his lowest pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- on the class III post. Besides this, a censure entry was awarded to him and his integrity of the year 2000-2001 was also not certified by District Magistrate, Allahabad. By the Appellate order dated 26.6.2006 the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. 2. The facts leading to the case are that the petitioner was appointed as clerk grade III in the Collectorate, Allahabad vide order dated 17.3.1981. He was promoted to the post of clerk grade-II vide order dated 6.10.1991. While working as clerk grade-II he has been posted at different places in the establishment of Collectorate, Allahabad. On 2.1.1998 the petitioner was posted as Store Keeper in the Magh Mela, Allahabad, where he has taken over charge on 2.1.1998. It is stated that vide work distribution order dated 28.10.1998, the petitioner was entrusted with the duties of maintenance of Government building and properties, Store bills, Stock Register, local purchase, furniture and hutting material storage, Establishment and supervision over class-IV employees, choukidars, Pran Rakshaks, Kutter boat drivers and daily wagers, maintenance of Government Boats and vehicles, Arrangement of meetings, verification of all Government dues, pairavi of the cases and other works instructed by the Officer-in-charge. 3. The petitioner was transferred and posted as Naib Nazir, Tehsil Sadar, Allahabad vide order dated 29.4.2000 under the orders of the District Magistrate, Allahabad. In view of aforesaid order, the petitioner was relieved from the post of store keeper, Magh Mela, Allahabad vide order dated 29.4.2000 with immediate effect. The petitioner was suffering from backbone spondilitis hence proceeded on medical leave vide an application dated 29.4.2000 and continued on medical leave upto 7.5.2000. In view of aforesaid order, the petitioner was relieved from the post of store keeper, Magh Mela, Allahabad vide order dated 29.4.2000 with immediate effect. The petitioner was suffering from backbone spondilitis hence proceeded on medical leave vide an application dated 29.4.2000 and continued on medical leave upto 7.5.2000. Due to serious pain and medical advice of bed rest, the petitioner could not hand over the charge of Store keeper after being relieved, therefore, the Commissioner and Meladhikari, Kumbh Mela, Allahabad has written letter dated 6.5.2000 to the District Magistrate, Allahabad for issue of the directions to the petitioner to hand over the charge of store keeper to Shri Sushil Prakash. The copy of the said letter was also served upon the petitioner on 7.5.2000 at 6.30 p.m. True copy of the letter dated 6.5.2000 written by Commissioner and Meladhikari, Kumbh Mela, Allahabad to the District Magistrate, Allahabad is on record as Annexure-1 of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner came to Magh Mela office on 8th and 9th May, 2000 and prepared the charge list. He remained present in the Magh Mela office for these two days in compliance of the letter dated 6.5.2000 issued by the Commissioner and Meladhikari, Kumbh Mela, Allahabad whereby he was directed to hand over the charge of store keeper to Shri Sushil Prakash. The petitioner has submitted his joining report on 10.5.2000 at the post of Naib Nazir, Tehsil Sadar, Allahabad, which was allowed. The charge list of files and articles was handed over to Shri Sushil Prakash on 13.5.2000. After verification and signature, the charge list was returned back to the petitioner on 26.5.2000. The petitioner was working as Naib Nazir, Tehsil Sadar, Allahabad. Thereafter vide order dated 18.10.2000 he was again posted in the office of Kumbh Mela-2001, as senior clerk and in pursuance thereof he submitted his joining report on 19.10.2000 and taken over the charge of store keeper, Kumbh Mela-2001 on 22.10.2000. Since 22.10.2000 to 30.6.2001 the petitioner was performing the duties of store keeper in the Kumbh Mela office. 5. It is stated that prior to the joining of the petitioner as Store Keeper in Magh Mela, Allahabad, FAFO No. 262 of 1997, State of U.P. v. Lallooji & sons and Anr. was filed before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad on 22.3.1997, but the same was decided on 15.9.1999 and dismissed on merit. 5. It is stated that prior to the joining of the petitioner as Store Keeper in Magh Mela, Allahabad, FAFO No. 262 of 1997, State of U.P. v. Lallooji & sons and Anr. was filed before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad on 22.3.1997, but the same was decided on 15.9.1999 and dismissed on merit. The copy of aforesaid order was not received to the petitioner, which was communicated by Chief Standing Counsel along with his covering letter dated 25.4.2000 but was received to Maghmela office on 5.5.2000 by Ashok Kumar, Clerk of Magh Mela office. It is further stated that vide letter dated 22.4.2002 the petitioner was called upon to explain within three days in respect of not doing proper pairvi of FAFO No. 262 of 1997 and for not taking steps for filing of SLP after the order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court. True copy of the aforesaid letter dated 22.4.2002 is on record as Annexure-3 of the writ petition. The petitioner had submitted his reply on 24.4.2002 stating therein that the petitioner was relieved from the post of Store-keeper on 29.4.2000 and the order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court was not received by him during the period he was posted as Store-keeper, but on the basis of inspection of record, he had further stated that copy of the order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court along with letter of Chief Standing Counsel was received by Ashok Kumar vide item No. 4022 of Index Register but the said order was not dispatched through Dak-Bahi to him, as such no question arises for receipt of the aforesaid order to the petitioner. A true copy of the said reply is on record as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. 6. After aforesaid reply of the petitioner, the explanation of Sri Ashok Kumar was called for, vide letter dated 27.4.2002 about the receipt and communication of the order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court, along with the letter of Chief Standing Counsel. In response to which Sri Ashok Kumar had submitted his reply dated 29.4.2002 stating therein that the order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court along with letter of Chief Standing Counsel dated 6.4.2000 was received by him on 5.5.2000 and after the endorsement of Officer Incharge of Maghmela it was handed over to the petitioner on 6.5.2000. In response to which Sri Ashok Kumar had submitted his reply dated 29.4.2002 stating therein that the order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court along with letter of Chief Standing Counsel dated 6.4.2000 was received by him on 5.5.2000 and after the endorsement of Officer Incharge of Maghmela it was handed over to the petitioner on 6.5.2000. It is stated in the writ petition that in the aforesaid reply of Sri Ashok Kumar the date and letter number of earned Chief Standing Counsel was mentioned incorrectly, it was also incorrectly stated that the aforesaid order of this Court along with letter of Chief Standing Counsel was communicated and handed over to the petitioner on 6.5.2000. In this connection it stated that petitioner was on medical leave up to 7.5.2000 due to which letter dated 6.5.2000 was written by the Commissioner, Allahabad to District Magistrate, Allahabad to issue direction to the petitioner to hand over the charge of Store Keeper to Sushil Prakash, a copy of reply of Ashok Kumar is on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 7. On 27.4.2002 Sri Sushil Prakash was also directed to submit his reply as to why he has not taken steps after the order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court in the aforesaid First Appeal From Order during his term of Store-keeper. In response to which Sri Sushil Prakash had also submitted his reply on 29.4.2002 and stated that he had not received the copy of order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court as he was Camp Clerk at the residence of the Commissioner and Meladhikari, Kumbh Mela 2001 due to which he could not take any steps. 8. It is also stated in the writ petition that during preliminary inquiry oral statements of the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar inasmuch as Sri Sushil Prakash were recorded by the Officer Incharge Magh Mela, Allahabad on 30.5.2002 but the petitioner was not allowed for cross examination from Sri Ashok Kumar and Sri Sushil Prakash. Thereafter on 31.5.2002 the petitioner submitted supplementary explanation and stated that his term of Store-keeper was up to 29.4.2000 on which date he was relieved and further stated that after 29.4.2000 he was on leave up to 7.5.2000. Thereafter Officer Incharge Magh Mela, Allahabad has submitted his preliminary enquiry report on 5.6.2002 to the District Magistrate, Allahabad. Thereafter on 31.5.2002 the petitioner submitted supplementary explanation and stated that his term of Store-keeper was up to 29.4.2000 on which date he was relieved and further stated that after 29.4.2000 he was on leave up to 7.5.2000. Thereafter Officer Incharge Magh Mela, Allahabad has submitted his preliminary enquiry report on 5.6.2002 to the District Magistrate, Allahabad. The copy of the preliminary report dated 5.6.2002 is on record as Annexure--6 to the writ petition. 9. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Allahabad had discussed the matter with Dr. Vikramajit Tiwari, the then Additional District Magistrate (City), Allahabad in respect of preliminary report dated 5.6.2002 and directed vide his order dated 22.7.2002 to him to put up the report by fixing clear liability of the person concerned. It is stated that Dr. Vikramajit Tiwari, the then Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad was transferred vide order dated 21.7.2002 and relieved from the post of Additional District Magistrate (City), Allahabad vide charge certificate 25.7.2002 in spite of it he had prepared an antedated report dated 17.7.2002 on the direction of D.M., Allahabad, whereby he had fixed liability of petitioner. The factum of report dated 17.7.2002 is ante dated is revealed from pages 1 and 2 of the said report itself wherein Dr. Vikramajit Tiwari had referred his discussion with the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 22.7.2002, which clearly indicates that after discussion with District Magistrate, Allahabad on 22.7.2002, he had prepared anti dated report dated 17.7.2002, otherwise the said report could not be prepared on 17.7.2002. It could be prepared on 22.7.2002 or subsequent to the aforesaid date. The copies of the charge certificate dated 25.7.2002 and anti dated report of Dr. Vikramajit Tiwari, the then Additional District Magistrate (City), Allahabad dated 17.7.2002 are on record as Annexures--7 and 8 to the writ petition. Although in the said report it was stated that the petitioner was relieved from the post of Store Keeper on 29.4.2000 and was on leave up to 7.5.2000 and further stated that Sri Ashok Kumar could not produce any proof or signature of the petitioner in respect of receiving the copy of the order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court along with letter of the Chief Standing Counsel and any person could be held responsible only in case he has received any paper under his signature. Despite thereof on direction of District Magistrate has held that the petitioner is also responsible for the lapses. 10. It is further stated that after perusal of the anti dated report dated 17.7.2002 of the then Addl. District Magistrate (City) Dr. Vikramajit Tiwari, the District Magistrate, Allahabad passed an order on 29.7.2002 initiating the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar inasmuch as against Sri Sushil Prakash. The copy of the order dated 29.7.2002 is on record as Annexure--9 to the writ petition. It is stated that although in 4th paragraph of the order dated 29.7.2002, the District Magistrate, Allahabad himself has clearly stated that Sri Ashok Kumar could not produce any evidence that he had handed over the order in First Appeal From Order to the petitioner. Such an order was received by him and was not entered into Dak-Bahi for dispatch to the petitioner which is a major irregularity on his part, but he has. initiated disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner also simultaneously alongwith the Ashok Kumar and Sri Sushil Prakash without any justification therefor. 11. Thereafter a charge sheet dated 6.8.2002 was served upon the petitioner containing three charges. First charge was in respect of lapses on the part of the petitioner in doing proper pairvy of the said First Appeal From Order No. 262 of 1997 and in taking appropriate action in that regard. The second charge pertains to the date of receiving of the order dated 15.9.1999 in the Office of Magh Mela on 6.5.2000 and for concealment of the said order by the petitioner thereby violating the Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. Third charge was related to further lapses on the part of petitioner in not taking proper steps in that matter during his term of Store-Keeper with effect form 22.10.2000 to 30.6.2001. A copy of the charge sheet is on record as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. 12. On receipt of the said charge sheet the petitioner submitted his written reply dated 28.8.2002. In the said reply the petitioner has refuted the charges levelled against him and stated grounds of his defence. The copy of the written reply dated 28.8.2002 submitted by the petitioner is on record as Annexure--11 to the petition. 12. On receipt of the said charge sheet the petitioner submitted his written reply dated 28.8.2002. In the said reply the petitioner has refuted the charges levelled against him and stated grounds of his defence. The copy of the written reply dated 28.8.2002 submitted by the petitioner is on record as Annexure--11 to the petition. During disciplinary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer sent a letter dated 20.9.2002 to the petitioner for cross examination of Sri Gopal Chaukidar and for personal hearing on 29.9.2002 at 5 PM., The cross examination of Gopal Chaukidar was done by the petitioner on 29.9.2002. In the personal hearing the petitioner has stated the routine practice for doing pairvy of the Government cases in the High Court and further stated that the Chief Standing Counsel is responsible for doing pairvy of the cases on behalf of the Government and only Gazetted Officer is eligible for the pairvy of the case and to file affidavit before this Court. The clerk is not competent for doing such pairvy but the Enquiry Officer illegally relied upon the biased and anti dated report dated 17.7.2002 of Dr. Vikramajit Tiwari and did not consider the facts and grounds as stated by the petitioner in his reply dated 28.8.2002 and submitted his enquiry report dated 16.1.2003 holding all three charges are found proved against the petitioner without recording even any adverse finding on the points of defence raised by the petitioner. 13. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 10.3.2003 was issued by the District Magistrate, Allahabad to the petitioner along with the copy of enquiry report dated 16.1.2003. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 1.4.2003 against the aforesaid show cause notice but the disciplinary authority did not consider the reply and defence taken by the petitioner in correct perspective, however passed the impugned order dated 2.7.2003 by placing reliance upon the enquiry report dated 16.1.2003. The copies of show cause notice dated 10.3.2003 and reply dated 1.4.2003 to the show cause notice and copy of the impugned order dated 2.7.2003 are on record as Annexures-- 15, 16 and 17 to the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved against which the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31454 of 2002 but the same was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. Feeling aggrieved against which the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31454 of 2002 but the same was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. Thereafter the petitioner has preferred appeal on 22.8.2003 before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, who vide order dated 26.6.2006 has dismissed the said appeal, hence this petition, The aforesaid order is on record as Annexure-19 to the writ petition. 14. It is submitted that an enquiry was also held against Sri Ashok Kumar and he was punished vide order dated 23.6.2003 for not discharging his duties regarding dispatch of Dak properly but still the petitioner has also been held guilty of charges by assuming that copy of order dated 15.9.1999 was served upon the petitioner without any material in support thereof. The copy of the order dated 23.6.2003 is on record as Annexure-21 to the writ petition. 15. Against the impugned orders, the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner in nutshell are that from perusal of charge sheet it appears that three charges grounded on same facts were framed against the petitioner. In support of the said charges only material upon which the reliance was sought for were the report of Additional District Magistrate, Nagar Allahabad dated 17.7.2002 and letter of Officer Incharge Maghmela dated 8.8.2001. Except the aforesaid materials neither any other material was intended to be relied upon to establish the charges against the petitioner nor any oral evidence of any other witness was sought for to be relied against the petitioner but from perusal of the inquiry report dated 16.1.2003 which was acted upon by the Disciplinary Authority, it is clear that besides aforesaid materials, reliance has also been placed on the preliminary inquiry report dated 5.6.2002, which was neither intended to be relied upon in support of the charges, nor copy of which was supplied along with the charge sheet nor it was proved by department nor the petitioner was asked to make any comment on the same. Therefore, no reliance could be placed thereon. 16. It is also submitted that in order to establish the charges against the petitioner no witness has been examined on behalf of department before Inquiry Officer, as such the petitioner has no occasion to cross-examine any such witness during the inquiry proceeding. Only witness which was cross-examined by the petitioner was Gopal Chaukidar. 16. It is also submitted that in order to establish the charges against the petitioner no witness has been examined on behalf of department before Inquiry Officer, as such the petitioner has no occasion to cross-examine any such witness during the inquiry proceeding. Only witness which was cross-examined by the petitioner was Gopal Chaukidar. On behalf of department no person has come forward before Inquiry Officer to prove the ante dated report of Dr. Vikramajit Tiwari dated 17.7.2002 and letter of Officer Incharge, Maghmela dated 8.8.2001, therefore, the aforesaid documents could not be relied upon by the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority unless those documents have been proved before inquiry officer. 17. Besides this, in the ante dated report dated 17.7.2002 Additional District Magistrate, Nagar Allahabad had made a reference of his discussion with District Magistrate dated 22.7.2002, as such the report dated 17.7.2002 could not be prepared by him on the aforesaid date, rather it is anti dated report prepared subsequent to 22.7.2002, thus the same can be said to be forged and fabricated documents against the petitioner and no reliance could be placed thereon, as the then Additional District Magistrate, Nagar Allahabad Sri Vikramajit Tiwari had no jurisdiction or authority to prepare such report after his transfer from the said post on 21.2.2002 and handing over charge of his post on 25.7.2002. Even if the said report would be treated to have been prepared on 27.7.2002 and due to some sort of inadvertence incorrect date 17.7.2002 has been mentioned therein, even then no such report could be submitted by him after 21.7.2002 or after 25.7.2002, therefore, no reliance could be placed by inquiry officer thereon, which too was not proved in accordance with the provisions of law. But from perusal of inquiry report dated 16.1.2003 it is clear that reliance has been placed by inquiry officer on the ante dated report of Additional District Magistrate, City dated 17.7.2002 which was prepared by him after his transfer from Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad to elsewhere. Since except the aforesaid report there is no other material to support the charges levelled against the petitioner, therefore, the charges were left unproved and could not be held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment is not sustainable in the eye of law. 18. Since except the aforesaid report there is no other material to support the charges levelled against the petitioner, therefore, the charges were left unproved and could not be held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment is not sustainable in the eye of law. 18. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that although Officer Incharge, Maghmela, Allahabad has recorded the statement of Sri Ashok Kumar and Sri Sushil Prakash on 30.5.2002 during preliminary inquiry on the basis of which report dated 5.6.2002 was submitted but petitioner was neither afforded opportunity to cross-examine them at the time of preliminary inquiry nor the aforesaid report dated 5.6.2002 was intended to be relied upon in support of the charges nor the aforesaid persons were again examined before the Inquiry Officer in support of the aforesaid charges levelled against the petitioner during the formal disciplinary inquiry, therefore, the petitioner has no occasion to cross-examine them, as such no reliance could be placed upon their statements made during the course of preliminary inquiry but from perusal of inquiry report dated 16.1.2003 it is clear that Inquiry Officer has placed reliance upon the statement of Sri Ashok Kumar and Sri Sushil Prakash inasmuch as the preliminary inquiry report dated 5.6.2002 of Officer Incharge, Maghmela without proving the same by department before him, as such the findings of Inquiry Officer cannot be sustained on that ground alone. 19. Besides this, learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of charges of misconduct levelled against him. Only allegation which could have some material bearing with the misconduct was communication of order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court along with the letter of learned Chief Standing Counsel which too was never proved by department before Inquiry Officer, therefore, the petitioner could not be held guilty of that charge, accordingly he could not be held guilty of misconduct levelled against him. 20. 20. While elaborating his submission learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as allegation that petitioner did not inform the Superior officers about the dismissal of said appeal and did not take any steps towards filing of SLP are concerned, it is submitted that unless the judgment and order passed by this Court was communicated to the petitioner by the office of Chief Standing Counsel, it is not understandable how he could inform the Superior officers and take any steps towards filing of SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court. It is not proved by respondents before inquiry officer by any material that the copy of the said judgment and order dated 15.9.1999 has ever been handed over to the petitioner along with the letter of learned Chief Standing Counsel by Sri Ashok Kumar, who had admittedly received the aforesaid copy of judgment and order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court at Maghmela office on 5.5.2000. It is also not the case of respondent that copy of said judgment was placed on the file of case by Sri Ashok Kumar or Sri Sushil Prakash when the petitioner had again joined the post of store-keeper second time on 22.10.2000 and continued, as such upto 30.6.2001. It is also irrelevant to say that during the aforesaid period he has been posted as store-keeper, therefore, it was his duty to inquire into the status of the case from this Court and in case such inquiry would have been made, in that event of the matter he could become aware of the said judgment of this Court. 21. In this connection it is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is routine practice in connection of the pairvy of the Government cases in the High Court that the office of Chief Standing Counsel on direction of this Court seeks instruction from the concerned party of the Government and only then the person entrusted for doing parivy of the case on behalf of the Government in the concerned office takes steps as sought for by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel. In cases of final disposal of the cases after obtaining the copy of such judgments, the office of Chief Standing Counsel communicates to the concerned party for compliance or with further advice of filing of appeal to the Hon'ble Apex Court or whatever forum in his opinion, the party has to avail, only thereafter concerned office of the Government has to proceed accordingly. In the proceeding before the High Court, the concerned office of the State Government need not to inquire about the status of pending cases from High Court or office of the Chief Standing Counsel. It is only in cases of stay vacation, contempt matters or expedite of hearing of pending cases and filing of fresh cases, the concerned office of Government has to approach the office of Chief Standing Counsel by their own, otherwise they have to wait and follow the instruction of Chief Standing Counsel, therefore, the aforesaid allegations levelled against the petitioner are wholly irrelevant and has no material bearing with the real cause of complaints against the petitioner. 22. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is also not the case of respondent department that when they come to know about the judgment and order of High Court dated 15.9.1999, on receipt of the notice of execution proceeding, then they preferred time barred SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court and same was dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay alone. In such eventuality, there could be some justification to blame Government official who is found responsible in not doing proper pairvy of the case or found responsible for causing delay in taking steps for filing such appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court but merely on account of failure to file appeal before Hon'ble Apex Court it cannot be said that the Government has suffered loss for simple reason that court below has made award rule of the court made by the Arbitrator in arbitration proceeding. Against the aforesaid decree passed in favour of the contractor, the department-respondent had filed appeal before this Court which was dismissed admittedly on merit. The amount payable to the Government Contractor was not paid to him, therefore, lying with Government, thus the Government was legally liable to pay interest on the amount to the contractor which was due to him can not be termed as any financial loss caused to the Government. The amount payable to the Government Contractor was not paid to him, therefore, lying with Government, thus the Government was legally liable to pay interest on the amount to the contractor which was due to him can not be termed as any financial loss caused to the Government. At any rate the petitioner cannot be held directly related to any such loss caused to the Government in absence of any proof that the copy of judgment and order dated 15.9.1999 was served upon the petitioner. The submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner have some substance and require to be examined by this Court. 23. Heard Sri G.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Ranjan learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the case is riped for hearing, therefore, the case has been heard for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 24. Now before adverting to the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is to be pointed out that the petitioner is a Government servant, as such he is holder of a civil post under the State and entitled for protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India before any order of punishment reducing him in rank was passed. The relevant provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution is extracted as under: No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. 25. Thus, the aforesaid provision of Article 311(2) makes it obligatory to hold an inquiry before the employee is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank. The Article, however, cannot be construed to mean that it prevents or prohibits the inquiry when punishment other than that of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is awarded to a Government servant. The procedure to be followed in awarding aforesaid punishments and other punishments is laid down in the service rules governing the employee. In the matter of all punishments major or minor the Government servants are governed by statutory service rules, which contemplates an inquiry before any punishment is awarded to such Government employees. The procedure to be followed in awarding aforesaid punishments and other punishments is laid down in the service rules governing the employee. In the matter of all punishments major or minor the Government servants are governed by statutory service rules, which contemplates an inquiry before any punishment is awarded to such Government employees. The petitioner is also governed by such statutory service rules in force at relevant point of time namely Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. 26. Rule 7 of said rules provides detail procedure for conducting an inquiry before imposing any major penalty on a Government servant, which reads as under: 7. Procedure for imposing major penalties - Before imposing any major penalty on a Government servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner: (i) The Disciplinary Authority may himself inquire into the charges or appoint an authority subordinate to him as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges. (ii) The facts constituting the misconduct on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges to be called charge-sheet: Provided that where the Appointing Authority is Governor, the charge-sheet may be approved by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary, as the case may be, or the concerned department. (iii) The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to given sufficient indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidences and the name of witnesses proposed to prove the same along with oral evidences, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet. (iv) The charged Government servant shall be required to put in a written statement of his defence in person or a specified date which shall not be less than 15 days from the date of issue of charge-sheet and to state whether he desires to cross-examine any witness mentioned in the charge-sheet and whether desires to give or produce evidence in his defence. He shall also be informed that in case he does not appear or file the written statement on the specified date, it will be presumed that he has none to furnish and inquiry officer shall proceed to complete the inquiry ex parte. He shall also be informed that in case he does not appear or file the written statement on the specified date, it will be presumed that he has none to furnish and inquiry officer shall proceed to complete the inquiry ex parte. (v) The charge-sheet along with the copy of documentary evidence mentioned therein and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged Government servant personally or by registered post at the address mentioned in the official records in case the charge-sheet could not be served in aforesaid manner, the charge sheet shall be served by publication in a daily newspaper having wide circulation: Provided that where the documentary evidence is voluminous, instead of furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the charged Government servant shall be permitted to inspect the same before the Inquiry Officer. (vi) Where the charged Government servant appears and admits the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall submit his report to the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of such admission. (vii) Where the charged Government servant denies the charges the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence: Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. (viii) The Inquiry Officer may summon any witnesses to give evidence or require any person to produce documents before him in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1976. (ix) The Inquiry Officer may ask any question he pleases, at any time of any witness or from person charged with a view to discover the truth or to obtain proper proof of facts relevant to charges. (x) Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding in spite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. (x) Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding in spite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant. (xi) The Disciplinary Authority, if it considers if necessary to do so, may, by an order appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as "Presiding Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the charge. (xii) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the presenting officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner of the Disciplinary Authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits: Provided that this rule shall not apply in following cases: (i) Where any major penalty is imposed on a person on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) Where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied, that for reason to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or (iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules. 27. From a close analysis of provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and Rule 7 of 1999 rules, it is clear that the aforesaid provisions of Constitution and statutory rules have virtually embodied the audi alteram partem rules of principles of natural justice, which means no person shall be condemned without hearing. The content and import of audi alteram partem rule of principles of natural justice has received consideration of Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time in context of disciplinary inquiry. Some of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court are referred hereinafter. 28. In Meenglas Tea Estate Vs. The content and import of audi alteram partem rule of principles of natural justice has received consideration of Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time in context of disciplinary inquiry. Some of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court are referred hereinafter. 28. In Meenglas Tea Estate Vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 , Hon'ble Apex Court while explaining the content and import of principles of natural justice in domestic enquiry in para-24 of the decision held as under: It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted. A departure from this requirement in effect throws the burden upon the person charged to repel the charge without first making it out against him. 29. In Union of India (UOI) Vs. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: Stating it broadly and without intending it to be exhaustive, it may be observed that rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross examining the witnesses examined by that party and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity explaining them. If these rules are satisfied, the enquiry is not open to attack on the ground that the procedure laid down in the Evidence Act for taking evidence was not strictly followed. Vide the recent decision of this Court in New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 232 , where this question is discussed. 30. Vide the recent decision of this Court in New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 232 , where this question is discussed. 30. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1623 Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating earlier view taken in T.R. Verma's case (supra) has held that in domestic inquiry the procedure followed in courts is not required to be followed: For ready reference. Relevant portion of para 10 of the decision is reproduced as under: The only general statement that can be safely made in this connection is that the departmental enquiry should observe rules of natural justice and that if they are fairly and properly conducted the decisions reached by the enquiry officers on the merits are not open to be challenged on the ground that the procedure followed was not exactly in accordance with that which is observed in courts of Law. It is hardly necessary to emphasise that the right to cross-examine the witnesses who give evidence against him is a very valuable right, and if it appears that effective exercise of this right has been prevented by the enquiry officer by not giving to the officer relevant documents to which he is entitled, that inevitably would be that the enquiry had not been held in accordance with rules of natural justice. 31. The aforesaid view has been again reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Mysore Vs. S.S. Makapur, AIR 1963 SC 375 . While dealing with scope of standard of proof in domestic inquiry in para 6 of the decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: 6. ...What was actually under consideration was the procedure to be followed by quasi-judicial bodies in holding enquiries and the decision was that they were not bound to adopt the procedure followed in Courts, and that it was only necessary that rules of natural justice should be observed. Discussing next what those rules required, it was observed that the person against whom a charge is made should know the evidence which is given against him, so that he might be in a position to give his explanation. When the evidence is oral, normally the examination of the witness will in its entirety, take place before the party charged, who will have full opportunity of cross-examining him. When the evidence is oral, normally the examination of the witness will in its entirety, take place before the party charged, who will have full opportunity of cross-examining him. The position is the same when a witness is called, the statement given previously by him behind the back of the party is put to him and admitted in evidence, a copy thereof is given to the party, and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine him. To require in that case that the contents of the previous statement should be repeated by the witness word by word, and sentence by sentence, is to insist on bare technicalities & rules of natural justice are matters not of form but of substance. In our opinion they are sufficiently complied with when previous statements given by witnesses are read over to them marked on their admission, copies thereof given to the person charged, and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine them. 32. In Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and Others, (1971) 2 SCC 617 , while dealing with the standard of proof in disciplinary/domestic inquiry in para 14 of the decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the application of principle of natural justice in domestic enquiry does not imply that what is not evidence can be acted upon. For ready reference the relevant portion of para 14 of the judgment is reproduced as under: But the application of principle of natural justice does not imply that what is not evidenced can be acted upon. On the other hand what it means is that no materials can be relied upon to establish a contested fact, which are not spoken to by persons who are competent to speak about them and are subjected to cross-examination by the party against whom they are sought to be used. When a document is produced in a Court or a Tribunal the questions that naturally arise is, is it a genuine document, what are its contents and are the statements contained therein true. When the Appellant produced the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company, it does not by its mere production amount to a proof of it or of the truth of the entries therein. If these entries are challenged the Appellant must prove each of such entries by producing the books and speaking from the entries made therein. When the Appellant produced the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company, it does not by its mere production amount to a proof of it or of the truth of the entries therein. If these entries are challenged the Appellant must prove each of such entries by producing the books and speaking from the entries made therein. If a letter or other document is produced to establish some fact which is relevant to the enquiry the writer must be produced or his affidavit in respect thereof be filed and opportunity afforded to the opposite party who challenges this fact. This is both in accord with principles of natural justice as...also according to the procedure under Order XIX, CPC and the Evidence Act both of which incorporate these general principles. 33. In Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2002) 7 SCC 142 , while explaining the meaning of expression "sufficiency of evidence" Hon'ble Apex Court in para 7 of the decision held that "sufficiency of evidence" postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, is no evidence in law. Para 7 is quoted as under: 7. It may be observed that the expression "sufficiency of evidence" postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence, however voluminous it may be, which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, is no evidence in law. The mere fact that the Inquiry Officer has noted in his report. "in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry", would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence.... 34. In Syed Rahimuddin Vs. Director General, C.S.I.R. and Others, (2001) 9 SCC 575 , while dealing with the scope of judicial review in context of conclusion or finding of fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry by the Inquiry Officer and/or Disciplinary Authority in para 5 of the decision Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: 5. 34. In Syed Rahimuddin Vs. Director General, C.S.I.R. and Others, (2001) 9 SCC 575 , while dealing with the scope of judicial review in context of conclusion or finding of fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry by the Inquiry Officer and/or Disciplinary Authority in para 5 of the decision Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: 5. It is well settled that a conclusion or a finding of fact arrived at in a disciplinary inquiry can be interfered with by the court only when there are no materials for the said conclusion, or that on the materials, the conclusion cannot be that of a reasonable man. Having examined the report of the Inquiry Officer, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot be held to be findings based on no evidence. 35. Now examining the facts of the case on touchstone of law enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time referred hereinbefore, it is necessary to point out that from perusal of charge sheet dated 6.8.2002 it appears that in support of the charges levelled in the charge sheet, the only materials upon which the reliance was sought for were the report of Additional District Magistrate, City Allahabad dated 17.7.2002 and letter of Officer Incharge Maghmela dated 8.8.2001. Except the aforesaid materials, neither any other material was intended to be relied upon to establish the charges against the petitioner nor any oral evidence of any other witness was sought for to be relied against the petitioner but from the perusal of inquiry report dated 16.1.2003 which was acted upon by the Disciplinary Authority it is clear that besides the aforesaid materials the reliance has also been placed on preliminary inquiry report dated 5.6.2002 which was neither intended to be relied upon in support of the charges nor copy of which was supplied along with the charge sheet as revealed from it nor it was proved by the department before the Inquiry Officer by placing the same in presence of the petitioner and by supplying a copy thereof and asking him to make any comment over the same. Therefore, in my opinion, no reliance could be placed thereon for the simple reason that it is an elementary principle of natural justice that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation against him but also testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires and then he must be given chance to rebut the evidence by adducing his defence evidence and repel the charges made out against him in such disciplinary inquiry. This is a minimal requirement of principles natural justice in holding such disciplinary and domestic inquiry against an employee. 36. In other words, those rules of principles of natural justice required that the person against whom a charge is made should know not only the charge but should also know the evidence which is to be relied upon in support of the said charge, so that he might be in a position to give his explanation. What it means is that no material can be relied upon to establish contested facts which are not spoken by a person who are competent to speak about them and are subjected to cross-examination by the party against whom they are sought to be used. When a document is produced in a court or tribunal, the question which arises is, is it a genuine document, what are its contents and are the statements contained therein true? Mere production of a document before the inquiry officer to prove a particular fact which is relevant to the inquiry is not ipso facto proof of it, if a letter or other documents is produced to establish some fact which is relevant to the inquiry, the writer must be produced or his affidavit in respect thereof be filed and opportunity afforded to the person charged to challenge the same. Mere production of document cannot be treated to be ipso facto proof of the contents of the said document and statement or entries made therein. At any case any person who is entitled to prove a document must come forward before the Inquiry Officer to prove such document. 37. Mere production of document cannot be treated to be ipso facto proof of the contents of the said document and statement or entries made therein. At any case any person who is entitled to prove a document must come forward before the Inquiry Officer to prove such document. 37. Same is the position with regard to the report of A.D.M. City dated 17th July 2002, though it was ante dated report prepared by A.D.M. City after his transfer and could not be taken in evidence but even assuming that the same could be sought to be relied upon against the petitioner in support of the charges, the aforesaid document was also required to be proved before Inquiry Officer by the writer of document or any person authorised under law to prove the same, but no person has come forward to prove the aforesaid documents before the Inquiry Officer, therefore, in my considered opinion, no reliance could be placed by the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority on the aforesaid report of A.D.M. City Allahabad. 38. However, with regard to the letter of Officer Incharge, Maghmela dated 8.8.2001, in his reply to the charge sheet the petitioner has stated that the record of the execution case was already handed over by him when he was relieved from the office of store-keeper on 30.6.2001 and the same was lying in Almirah but when the petitioner was asked to hand over the aforesaid record, he visited the office of Maghmela where he was informed that key of lock has been lost, as such with the help of Gopal Chaukidar the lock was open by another key and iron rod and the record of execution case was handed over, therefore, in my opinion, nothing could be inferred against the petitioner on the basis of aforesaid letter and incident of handing over the record of the execution case in question in the wake of facts and circumstances of the case mentioned in reply of charge sheet referred herein before. 39. From the perusal of inquiry report dated 16.1.2003, it appears that the Inquiry Officer has also placed reliance upon the statement of Sri Ashok Kumar and Sri Sushil Prakash which were made during the preliminary inquiry on 30.5.2002 and referred in preliminary inquiry report dated 5.6.2002. 39. From the perusal of inquiry report dated 16.1.2003, it appears that the Inquiry Officer has also placed reliance upon the statement of Sri Ashok Kumar and Sri Sushil Prakash which were made during the preliminary inquiry on 30.5.2002 and referred in preliminary inquiry report dated 5.6.2002. The aforesaid statements of Sri Ashok Kumar and Sri Sushil Prakash were neither sought to be relied upon in support of the charges, as there is nothing to indicate in the charge sheet that their statements during the preliminary inquiry would be relied against the petitioner in support of the charges, nor they have been asked before the Inquiry Officer during formal disciplinary inquiry to make any statement or support their previous statements made during preliminary inquiry, as such there can be no occasion to the petitioner to cross-examine them during formal disciplinary inquiry, as such the Inquiry Officer could not placed reliance upon the statements of Sri Ashok Kumar and Sri Sushil Prakash which were made during the preliminary inquiry and was never intended to be relied upon in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet. 40. I have also summoned the records of the departmental proceedings held against the petitioner. After perusing the records brought before the Court. Learned standing counsel Sri Ravi Ranjan has fairly stated that the statements of Sri Ashok Kumar and Sushil Prakash were not recorded before Inquiry Officer during formal disciplinary inquiry held against the petitioner. Therefore in my opinion, the petitioner was denied opportunity of cross-examining the aforesaid witnesses relied upon by the Inquiry Officer. It is not conceivable how the statement of aforesaid witnesses has been relied by the Inquiry Officer without examining them before him. This is travesty of principles of natural justice while holding disciplinary inquiry in the manner aforestated. If these materials, which were not proved before inquiry officer, are excluded from the consideration, there exist no other material to establish the charges levelled against the petitioner, accordingly he could not be held guilty of misconduct levelled against him, as such the inquiry report dated 16.1.2003 submitted by inquiry officer could not be acted upon by the Disciplinary Authority and no punishment could be awarded to the petitioner. 41. 41. Now looking into the main charge, which could have some material bearing with the misconduct was that the petitioner did not inform the Superior officers about the dismissal of said First Appeal From Order and did not take any steps towards filing of SLP is concerned, the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that unless the judgment and order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court was communicated to the petitioner by the office of Chief Standing Counsel, how he could inform the superior officers and take further steps towards filing of SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court, appears to be correct and in my considered opinion, unless the aforesaid judgment was communicated to him by any person, it is not understandable how he could inform the Superior officers and take any steps towards filing of SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court. It is not proved by respondents before inquiry officer by placing any material on record that the copy of the said judgment and order dated 15.9.1999 has ever been handed over or communicated to the petitioner by Sri Ashok Kumar, who had admittedly received the copy of judgment and order dated 15.9.1999 passed by this Court at Maghmela office on 5.5.2000. Sri Ashok Kumar was also not examined by respondents before inquiry officer to prove his previous statement made during the preliminary inquiry, therefore, it is not understandable how the reliance was placed by the inquiry officer upon the statement of sri Ashok Kumar, who was not examined by the department before inquiry officer during formal disciplinary inquiry to prove his previous statement as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Mysore and Ors. v. Shivbasappa Shivappa's case (supra). It is also not the case of respondent that copy of said judgment was placed on the file of case by Sri Ashok Kumar or Sri Sushil Prakash when the petitioner had again joined the post of storekeeper second time on 22.10.2000 and continued, as such upto 30.6.2001. It is irrelevant to say that during the aforesaid period he has been posted as store-keeper, therefore, it was his duty to inquire into the status of the case from this Court and in case such inquiry would have been made, in that event of the matter he could become aware of the said judgment of this Court. 42. It is irrelevant to say that during the aforesaid period he has been posted as store-keeper, therefore, it was his duty to inquire into the status of the case from this Court and in case such inquiry would have been made, in that event of the matter he could become aware of the said judgment of this Court. 42. In this connection, further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the office of Chief Standing Counsel on direction of this Court seeks instruction from the concerned party of the Government and only then the person entrusted for doing parivy of the case on behalf of the Government in the concerned office takes steps as sought for by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel. In cases of final disposal after obtaining the copy of such judgments, the office of Chief Standing Counsel communicates to the concerned party for compliance or with further advice of filing of appeal to the Hon'ble Apex Court or whatever forum in his opinion, the party has to avail, only thereafter concerned office of the Government has to proceed accordingly. In the proceeding before the High Court, the concerned office of the State Government need not to inquire about the pending cases from High Court or office of the Chief Standing Counsel. However, in the case of stay vacation, contempt matters or expedite of hearing of pending cases, and for filing of fresh cases only the concerned office of Government has to approach the office of Chief Standing Counsel by their own, otherwise they have to follow the instruction of Chief Standing Counsel also appears to be correct as it is routine practice prevalent for doing pairvi of the State cases in the High Court, therefore, in my opinion, aforesaid allegations levelled against the petitioner in this regard are wholly based on irrelevant considerations and have no material bearing with the real cause of complaints against the petitioner. 43. Further submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is also not the case of respondent department that when they come to know about the judgment and order of High Court dated 15.9.1999, on receipt of the notice of execution proceeding, then they preferred time barred SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court and same was dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay alone. In such eventuality, there could be some justification to blame Government official who is found responsible in not doing proper pairvy of the case or found responsible for causing delay in taking steps for filing such appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. But merely on account of failure to file appeal before Hon'ble Apex Court, it cannot be assumed that the Government has suffered loss, for simple reason that court below has made award rule of the court made by the Arbitrator in arbitration proceeding. Against the aforesaid decree passed in favour of the contractor, the department-respondent had filed appeal before this Court which was dismissed admittedly on merit. The amount payable to the Government Contractor was not paid to him, therefore, lying with Government, thus the Government was legally liable to pay interest on the amount to the contractor which was due to him can not be termed as any financial loss caused to the Government. At any rate the petitioner cannot be held directly related to any such loss caused to the Government in absence of any proof that the copy of judgment and order dated 15.9.1999 was served upon the petitioner also appears to have substance and deserve to be accepted. In given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no material evidence before the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority on the basis of which charges of misconduct can be held to be found proved against the petitioner. 44. Even otherwise also from perusal of preliminary inquiry report dated 5.6.2002 submitted by the Officer Incharge, Maghmela, it is clear that in the Index Register at serial No. 4082 dated 6.5.2000 the letter of Chief Standing Counsel was entered in the name of Store Keeper/petitioner which was admittedly received by Sri Ashok Kumar, Clerk Maghmela on 5.5.2000 but no signature of Store Keeper was obtained on receipt of the said letter. It was further held that although Sri Ashok Kumar has stated that he had handed over the aforesaid letter to the petitioner but in support of his statement he could not produce any material showing the signature of petitioner on receipt of said letter, therefore, it was further observed that the petitioner could not be held responsible for the same and he could be held responsible only when the aforesaid letter would have been handed over to him and his signature on receipt of the letter was obtained. On the aforesaid lapse, Sri Ashok Kumar was held responsible but without any further material on record, it is not understandable how A.D.M. City Dr. Vikramajit Tiwari vide his ante dated report dated 17.7.2002 has also implicated the petitioner. In my opinion, unless there was any additional material before him showing that aforesaid letter was handed over to the petitioner by Sri Ashok Kumar, there appears no justification for him to hold that the petitioner was aware of the said order of this Court or it was received to him during his tenure as store-keeper of Maghmela. Besides this, there is no material on record that the petitioner has attended his office in Maghmela on 6.5.2000. Contrary to it the letter of Commissioner dated 6.5.2000 addressed to the D.M., Allahabad (Annexure-1 of the writ petition) directing the petitioner to hand over the charge of Store Keeper, therefore, it is not understandable how Sri Ashok Kumar had handed over the said order of this Court to the petitioner on 6.5.2000, when he had not attended the office at Maghmela on the aforesaid date. But relying upon the said ante-dated report on 17.7.2002 of Dr. Vikramajit Tiwari, inquiry officer has held the petitioner guilty of aforesaid charge. In my opinion, it cannot be said that the department has connected the petitioner from any material evidence on record from the aforesaid charge. As Sri Ashok Kumar was also not examined before inquiry officer during formal disciplinary inquiry to prove that he had handed over the copy of the order of this Court dated 15.9.1999 to the petitioner, therefore, virtually there exist no evidence oral or documentary before the inquiry officer to arrive at a conclusion that the copy of said order was handed over to the petitioner on 6.5.2000 or any subsequent date during his second term of store-keeper of Maghmela. In absence thereof the aforesaid charge could not be held to be proved against the petitioner, therefore, the findings of inquiry officer could not be accepted and acted upon by the Disciplinary Authority. 45. Further submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the letters which were received by the office of Maghmela were to be entered in the Index Registered first, thereafter by making entries on Dakbahi such letters were delivered to the person concerned and admittedly Sri Ashok Kumar had not entered the aforesaid letter of Chief Standing Counsel along with the order of this Court in the Dak Bahi of the office to be delivered to the petitioner, therefore, no question arose to handing over the aforesaid letter to the petitioner on 6.5.2000. The statement made by Sri Ashok Kumar during the preliminary inquiry was just to save his skin from the aforesaid act of misconduct against him, also appears to be have some substance and deserves to be accepted but authorities have failed to consider the same in correct perspective while dealing with the issue and has also held the petitioner responsible not because of the reason that the said letter was found served upon the petitioner but for the reason that it was duty of the petitioner to enquire into the matter and get acquainted with the situation. Such approach, in my considered opinion is wholly irrelevant and misconceived. At any rate no reasonable man in given facts and circumstances of the case would come to the conclusion as arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly the impugned order dated 2.7.2003 and 26.6.2006 are wholly erroneous, misconceived and cannot be sustained, therefore, the same are hereby quashed. 46. In the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be restored to his status quo ante as existing on the date of impugned order dated 2.7.2003 passed against him, as a result of which his pay scale would be restored automatically in scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- as existing on the date of impugned order. Censure entry awarded to him shall also stand expunged. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner for the deficit amount on account of impugned order dated 2.7.2003, whereby his pay scale was reduced. 4000-6000/- as existing on the date of impugned order. Censure entry awarded to him shall also stand expunged. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner for the deficit amount on account of impugned order dated 2.7.2003, whereby his pay scale was reduced. Such payment of arrears shall be made within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before concerned authority. 47. Since I have already held that the respondents have failed to establish or prove the charges against the petitioner and there exist no legally acceptable material before the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority to establish the charges of misconduct against the petitioner, therefore, in my opinion, the Appointing/Disciplinary Authority has no justification to withhold or deny to certify the integrity of the petitioner for year 2000-2001 in given facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, The Appointing Authority is directed to pass fresh order with regard to the integrity of the petitioner in respect of year 2000-01, as the order passed regarding the integrity of the petitioner for the aforesaid year has already been quashed by this Court. Such order shall be passed by the concerned authority within a period of one month from the date of production of this order before him. With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. The parties shall bear their own costs.