JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Siddharth,J. 1. Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy and Shri Ranjeet Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition praying for quashing of the order dated 22.10.1993, passed by respondent no.1, Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Aligarh, Order dated 27.10.1994 and 07.10.1995, passed by respondent no.2, Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Meerut and Order dated 21.08.1996, passed by the respondent no.3, Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Aligarh. Further direction has been sought against the respondent nos. 3 and 1 to promote the petitioner on the post of Boring Technician on regular and permanent basis in the Pay Scale of 1200-30-1440-EB-30-1800 w.e.f., 01.11.1993. 3. The petitioner's case is that he is working as Assistant Boring Technician under the respondents in the Department of Irrigation on a substantive post in regular capacity and at present he is discharging his duties in Block Dhanipur, District Aligarh. On 05.11.1992, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the respondent no.1 on the allegations of certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in the year 1991-92 in respect of boring of tube well of two persons, namely, Sri Raghunath son of Udal, resident of Village Pinjari and Sri Fateh Singh son of Sri Bhajan Singh, resident of Village Banihal, both falling under Block Lodha, District Aligarh under free boring scheme. Assistant Engineer (Minor Irrigation) Etah was appointed as Inquiry Officer for conducting disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer served the charge-sheet dated 28.12.1992, on the petitioner with the allegation that he had committed certain irregularities in respect of aforesaid two free borings of Sri Raghunath and Sri Fateh Singh causing a loss of Rs.7683.86 to the Government by forging fictitious documents. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Charge Sheet dated 15.01.1993 stating therein that in effect two borings were done on the plots of the beneficiaries and Junior Engineer (Minor Irrigation) concerned had submitted his progress report on the basis of physical verification on the spot. Sri Raghunath had given an affidavit dated 11.01.1993 confirming the fact of boring and also stating therein that he had taken out the pipes of his boring due to a family dispute and had utilized the same in his pukka well. Sri Raghunath had given an affidavit dated 11.01.1993 confirming the fact of boring and also stating therein that he had taken out the pipes of his boring due to a family dispute and had utilized the same in his pukka well. So far as boring of Sri Fateh Singh is concerned, his boring failed on account of which he took out pipes of his boring and utilized the same in the boring on a different chak. Thus the petitioner had completed both borings in question in the year 1990-91 and he is not guilty of charges leveled against him. Beneficiaries, namely, Sri Raghunath son of Sri Udai, had given an application dated 11.1.1993, the Inquiry Officer duly verified by the Gram Pradhan concerned to the effect that his boring was done in year 1990-91 by the pipes supplied from Block Lodha. Subsequently Sri Raghunath had also given an affidavit dated 17.09.1992 stating the fact of boring on his plot under the free Boring Scheme. In view of the frivolous charges against the petitioner and the delay in completion of the disciplinary enquiry, the respondent no.1 revoked the suspension order provisionally by his order dated 3.04.1993. On 23.01.1993 the Junior Engineer, Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, who was posted in the Block Lodha, District Aligarh in the year 1990-91 had also written a letter dated 23.01.1993 intimating the respondent no.1, that the borings in question were done and the boring certificate duly signed by the Block Development Officer concerned were sent to the bank. It appears that subsequently the Inquiry Officer had submitted his two inquiry reports, dated 30.03.1993 and 8.09.1993, copies whereof were never supplied to the petitioner and on the basis of the same the respondent no.1 passed order of punishment on 22.09.1993 imposing three penalties on the petitioner namely : - (i). Recovery of Rs.990/- from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.200 per month. (ii). Withholding of the salary of the petitioner during suspension period (5.11.1992 to 3.4.1993). (iii). Censure entry in the service book of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 22.09.1993, the petitioner preferred a representation/ appeal against the same to the respondent no.2, on 8.12.1993 annexing therewith the boring certificate and other relevant evidence in support of his case. Withholding of the salary of the petitioner during suspension period (5.11.1992 to 3.4.1993). (iii). Censure entry in the service book of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 22.09.1993, the petitioner preferred a representation/ appeal against the same to the respondent no.2, on 8.12.1993 annexing therewith the boring certificate and other relevant evidence in support of his case. The respondent no.2 decided petitioner's appeal/ representation dated 8.12.1993 by his order dated 27.10.1994 holding that petitioner is not guilty in respect of boring of Sri Fateh Singh but is guilty in respect of boring of Raghunath son of Udal and reduced the punishment accordingly. The punishment as modified by the respondent no.2 by his order dated 27.10.1994 stated as under : (i). The recovery will be made from the salary of the petitioner in respect of boring of Raghunath son of Udal and not in respect of boring of Sri Fateh Singh son of Sri Gajendra Singh. (ii). Withholding of salary of the petitioner for the suspension period (5.11.1992 to 3.4.1993). (iii). Adverse entry in the service book of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner his guilty of preparing forged document in year 1990-91 in respect of free boring of Sri Raghu Nath son of Udal, resident of village Pinjari. 4. Thus respondent no.2 held the petitioner guilty in respect of boring of Sri Raghunath son of Sri Udal and exonerated him regarding the charges in respect of boring of Sri Fateh son of Sri Gajendra Singh. 5. Aggrieved by the order of respondent no.2 dated 27.10.1994, which was passed by him ignoring the affidavit of the beneficiary namely Raghunath son of Udal. The petitioner made another undated representation to the respondent no.2 for reviewing his earlier order dated 27.10.1994, which was received in the office of respondent no.2 on 30.03.1995. Thereafter the respondent no.2 decided the representation of the petitioner by reviewing his earlier order dated 27.10.1994 by his order dated 7.10.1995 and modified his earlier order dated 27.10.1994 as follows, (i). The recovery of the expenses of boring of Sri Raghunath Singh son of Udai will be made from the amount of Rs.990/- from the salary of the petitioner. (ii). The punishment no.2 regarding salary of the petitioner for the suspension period is modified and he is re-instated with salary for the suspension period. (iii). The recovery of the expenses of boring of Sri Raghunath Singh son of Udai will be made from the amount of Rs.990/- from the salary of the petitioner. (ii). The punishment no.2 regarding salary of the petitioner for the suspension period is modified and he is re-instated with salary for the suspension period. (iii). The adverse entry in the service-book of the petitioner is maintained as under - "Sri Ram Phal, Assistant boring technician is found guilty of forging documents with regard to the boring of Sri Raghunath son of Udal in the year 1990-91." 6. Thus in effect the respondent no.2 modified punishment no.2 only with regard to his salary for the suspension period. So far as the recovery from the salary of the petitioner as well as the adverse entry in character roll was maintained as earlier. Petitioner proved to the hilt that the boring of Sri Raghunath Singh son of Udal was done by the petitioner and the same was accepted by the beneficiary concerned in his application and affidavit. Therefore, petitioner ought to have been absolved fully from the charges leveled against him with regard to the boring of Sri Raghunath Singh son of Udal. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent no.2 dated 7.10.1995, the petitioner made a representation/ appeal to the respondent no.3 on 17/18.11.1995 annexing therewith entire evidence in the support of his case. The petitioner received order of respondent no.1 dated 12.09.1996 intimating him that his representation dated 17.11.1995 has been rejected by the respondent no.3 by his order dated 21.08.1996, hence this writ petition. 7. The respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit stating that ihe Inspecting Officer, at the time of inspection for certifying the place of boring, had found that the boring was not done at the fixed or specified place. After thorough inspection the petitioner was found guilty and suitable action for his suspension were initiated. Due to delay in the enquiry and keeping in view that suspended employee would not suffer any loss, the suspension order was provisionally revoked and the petitioner was reinstated. Provisional reinstatement of petitioner does not means that his suspension order is bad, illegal and without any basis. On the representation of the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, vide his order dated 27.10.94, has amended the order of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Aligarh. Provisional reinstatement of petitioner does not means that his suspension order is bad, illegal and without any basis. On the representation of the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, vide his order dated 27.10.94, has amended the order of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Aligarh. Respondent no.3, Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, vide letter dated 21.08.1996 has rejected the representation of the petitioner and the information of the same was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.09.1996. The case of Surendra Kumar, the then Assistant Boring Technician, is entirely different from the petitioner's case, as such, no question arises for comparing the case of petitioner with Surendra Kumar. Entries of Jaipal Singh, Assistant Boring Technician, were favourable and no charge of farzi boring was established against him. The petitioner's promotion as Boring Technician was made on 1.11.1994, keeping in view the decisions taken by the higher authorities and the punishment awarded to him. The entire action taken against the petitioner is wholly just, valid and legal. The petitioner's promotion on the post of Boring Technician was made on 1.11.1994 instead of 01.11.1993, keeping in view the punishment awarded to him due to his forgery committed by him. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs, as claimed. 8. The petitioner has filed a Second Supplementary Affidavit stating that the boring on the land of Raghunath was started on 24.01.1991 and completed on 25.01.1991, in this regard Boring work completion certificate has been issued with the signature of petitioner, Junior Engineer, Minor Irrigation as well as Block Development Officer, Lodha, Aligarh. The boring of Raghunath was tested and in this regard another certificate has been issued after four hours of trial of Boring, which is signed by Junior Engineer and Block Development Officer, Lodha, Aligarh. The aforementioned certificate was submitted before the concerned Bank for issuance of cheque of engine and accessories. Chaudhari Machinery Store has issued bill of diesel engine and other accessories along with the test report of engine. The boring of Fateh Singh and Raghunath have been recorded in the revenue record in the year 1991 (1398F). The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Aligarh illegally and arbitrary mentioned in his report with regard to Fateh Singh and Raghunath that there is no boring, however, pipe and engine was found. The boring of Fateh Singh and Raghunath have been recorded in the revenue record in the year 1991 (1398F). The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Aligarh illegally and arbitrary mentioned in his report with regard to Fateh Singh and Raghunath that there is no boring, however, pipe and engine was found. Due to illegal and arbitrary act of the officers concerned the petitioner could not promoted on 01.11.1993 however he was later promoted on 1.11.1994 on the post of Boring Technician. Raghunath has also informed the Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation/Inquiry Officer about correct facts in writing which is signed and stamped by the then Pradhan and approved by Block Pramukh Lodha Aligarh. After installation of the engine and pump set upon the boring of Raghunath, a certificate was signed by the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank. 9. The respondents have filed a Second Supplementary Counter Affidavit to the above Supplementary Affidavit stating that on 30.10.1992, the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Prakhand, Aligarh, has conducted a spot inspection and no boring was found on the spot. As such, it appears that the boring work completion certificate is forged. 10. The petitioner has filed Second Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit stating that the alleged spot inspection is absolutely absurd and contrary to the record as well as the report of the S.D.M., Koal dated 5.10.1994 which is based upon the Khatauni of the beneficiaries. However, the S.D.M. Koal has over looked the Khatauni of Raghunath which also mentioned as the source of irrigation, the boring constructed in the year 1399 Fasli as of Fateh Singh. Neither any spot inspection has been made nor any document with regard to the boring of Fateh Singh and Raghunath have been considered by the Executive Engineer, though the certificate of completion of boring of Raghunath has been signed by Raghunath, petitioner, Block Development Officer, Junior Engineer, Minor Irrigation as well as Pradhan of Gram Sabha and Block Pramukh. The interesting part of the said certificate is that the same has been attested by Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation himself which is apparent from the certificate dated 26.02.1991. The interesting part of the said certificate is that the same has been attested by Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation himself which is apparent from the certificate dated 26.02.1991. It is further stated that the report of S.D.M. Koal dated 05.10.1994 which is based on Khatauni for the year 1401 Fasli upon which boring is recorded in the khata of both, Fateh Singh as well as Raghunath, however, boring of Fateh Singh has been accepted whereas the boring of Raghunath has been overlooked by S.D.M. Koal as such the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges of boring of Fateh Singh. The certificate and bill are evident enough of boring of Raghunath whereas the boring of Fateh Singh, though it has been denied in the report of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Aligarh, however, after the report of S.D.M. the charges of Fateh Singh has been dropped. The answering respondent has failed to demonstrate that if the report of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Aligarh was correct then under what circumstances the report from S.D.M. Koal has been called and the charges of Fateh Singh has been dropped on the basis of Khatauni. 11. The respondents have filed a third Supplementary Counter Affidavit bringing on record the photocopy of the report dated 30.10.1992 of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Aligarh, wherein it has been stated that Raghunath and Fateh Singh have informed that there is no boring. Raghunath informed that he got 5 pipes and engine and he will get the boring completed soon and Fateh Singh informed that there is no boring. Two pipes wre found and the mother of Fateh Singh informed that engine was received which has gone to the house of the relatives.. The photocopy of the interim enquiry report dated 30.03.1993 and final enquiry report dated 08.09.1993, submitted by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Aligarh has also been brought on record in compliance of the order dated 05.12.2017 of this Court. A copy of the punishment order dated 22.10.1993 passed by Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Aligarh has also been brought on record. 12. The petitioner has filed his third Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit stating that the enquiry report dated 08.09.1993 has been prepared in mechanical manner without specifying the names of the persons regarding whom enquiry was conducted, Raghunath or Fateh Singh. 12. The petitioner has filed his third Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit stating that the enquiry report dated 08.09.1993 has been prepared in mechanical manner without specifying the names of the persons regarding whom enquiry was conducted, Raghunath or Fateh Singh. The allegation regarding boring of Fateh Singh was found incorrect and the petitioner was exonerated of the charges regarding boring of Fateh Singh. Had the copy of the enquiry report been provided to the petitioner, he could have submitted his reply to the same. The impugned punishment order dated 22.10.1993 is based upon the enquiry report dated 08.09.1993, when the enquiry report is non speaking, illegal and arbitrary and order passed on its basis can not be sustained. 13. Before proceeding to examine, the pleadings and contentions of the parties, it is necessary to advert to the relevant service rules. The impugned punishment order was passed in the year 1993 and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in the year 1992 when the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant ( Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1999, were not framed. Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930 (as applicable in Uttar Pradesh) (herein after referred to as "Rules of 1930") were holding the field. The Punishment & Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services, Uttar Pradesh 1932, (herein after referred to as "Rules of 1932") framed in exercise of powers conferred by Rule- 54 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930 (as applicable in Uttar Pradesh) was also holding the field regarding disciplinary proceedings against the subordinate employees of the State Government Departments. 14. Under Rule-2(6) of Rules of 1932, it is provided that the Government delegates the power to inflict all punishments, except removal or dismissal, on members of subordinate service, who were appointed by the Government to the Commissioner, with regard to the revenue officials and to the Head of the Department with regard to the others. As per Rule-3 (a) of Rules of 1932, the Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department was delegated the power to inflict all punishments by the Government except Removal or Dismissal. 15. As per Rule-5-B of Rules of 1932, the punishing authority was not required to frame formal charge against the Government Servant concerned or to call for his explanation while imposing the punishment of censure or stoppage at an efficiency bar. 15. As per Rule-5-B of Rules of 1932, the punishing authority was not required to frame formal charge against the Government Servant concerned or to call for his explanation while imposing the punishment of censure or stoppage at an efficiency bar. But in cases of withholding increments in the time scale at stages where there is no efficiency bar or for imposing the penalty of recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, formal proceedings of enquiry regarding award of major penalty is required. 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned punishment and appellate orders passed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was awarded the punishment of recovery of Rs.990/- towards loss of public money and a censure entry was also awarded to him regarding the misconduct in the year, 1990-91, without following the procedure laid down under Rule-5-B of the Punishment & Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services, Uttar Pradesh 1932. This Rule provides for following the procedure of enquiry meant for awarding major punishment by issuing a formal charge sheet, calling for explanation and recording reasons of punishment awarded. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has argued that the Rules of 1932 only require issuance of show cause notice and decision by the enquiry officer after considering the explanation of the employee concerned. There is no requirement of following the procedure preceding the award of major punishment in the Rule. For ready reference Rule-5-B of the Punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services, U.P., 1932 is being reproduced hereunder, "(5-B) (a) Wherever the punishing authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course, it may impose the penalty of- (i). censure, or (ii). stoppage at an efficiency-bar. Provided that it shall no be necessary to frame formal charges against the Government servant concerned or to call for his explanation. (b) In all cases where a punishing authority impose the penalty of - (i). withholding increments in the time scale at stages where there is no efficiency bar, or (ii). recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. formal proceedings embodying a statement of the office or fault, the explanation of the person concerned and the reason concerned and the reasons for the punishment shall be recorded. recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. formal proceedings embodying a statement of the office or fault, the explanation of the person concerned and the reason concerned and the reasons for the punishment shall be recorded. Provided that it shall not be necessary to record such proceedings in cases where a Government servant's increment in the time scale of his pay, at any stage other than an efficiency-bar is stopped due to his integrity remaining uncertified." 17. A perusal of the Rule shows that with regard to penalty of censure or stoppage at efficiency bar, there is no requirement of framing formal charges against the government servant concerned or to call for his explanation but regarding punishment of recovery of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to government by negligence of breach of orders, formal proceedings embodying a statement of the offence or fault, the explanation of the person concerned and the reasons for punishment shall be recorded. Therefore, when a formal charge is framed, explanation is called, unless the charges are proved by leading of evidence by the department and affording of opportunity to the government servant concerned to put forth is defence, no order of punishment can be passed. The Rules of 1932 are pre-Constitutional and therefore the requirements of Article-14 of the Constitution of India have not been expressly mentioned therein but it is settled law that even if the opportunity of hearing is not expressly provided in the Rules, it is required to be read therein. 18. In the present case, it is found that the punishment order dated 22.10.1993, passed by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Aligarh has been passed only on the report dated .08.09.1993 of the Assistant Engineer, Etah, stating that the petitioner fabricated documents regarding the boring of the two agriculturist. By means of the third Supplementary Counter Affidavit, filed by the respondents, the copy of the enquiry report dated 08.09.1993 has been brought on record by the respondents in compliance to the order dated 04.01.2018, passed by this Court. By means of the third Supplementary Counter Affidavit, filed by the respondents, the copy of the enquiry report dated 08.09.1993 has been brought on record by the respondents in compliance to the order dated 04.01.2018, passed by this Court. The entire enquiry report dated 08.09.1993 is being reproduced as follows, **isz"kd] xksiuh; lgk;d vfHk;UrkA y0fl0A ,Vk lsok esa] vf/k'kklh vfHk;UrkA y0fl0A [k.M vyhx<+ i=kad 438A y0fl0A LFkk0@fuy0 fnukad 8-9-93 egksn;] d`i;k vius dk;kZy; i= l[;ka 729@y0fl0@ fnukad 20-8-93 dk voyksdu djus d"V djsa ftlds }kjk Jh jkeQy l0cks0Vs0 dh tkWp vk[;k pkgh xbZ gSA mDr ds dze esa vkidks voxr djkuk gS fd esjs }kjk fnukad 28-4-93 dks Jh j?kqukFk iq= Jh mny fuoklh fitjh ,oa Jh Qrsg flag iq= Jh Hktu flag fuoklh jfugky ds cksfjax dk LFky ij lR;kiu fd;k x;kA fujh{k.k ds le; esjs }kjk jLlh ls cksfjax ukik x;k mlesa 20 QqV ikbi rFkk 4 QqV ikbi esa ikuh FkkA cksfjax iqjkus cDls dwi eas dh x;h tks cUn iM+k FkkA cksfjax ,d nks ekg iwoZ dh gS rFkk dSfoVh Hkh fujh{k.k ds le; ugha cuh Fkh vkSj vc rd dSfoVh cuokbZ xbZ gSA d`"kd ds dFku ds vuqlkj mUgsa 4&4 ikbi fn;s x;s gS ijUrq mlus rhu ikbi ls cksfjax dh gS ij v/kwjh gSA Jh jkeQy] l0cks0Vs0 }kjk mDr nksuksa d`"kdksa ds cksfjax pkVZ ,oa ------- i=&4 rS;kj dj gLrk{kj fd;s gSA mDr fLFkfr ls Li"V gksrk gS fd Jh jkeQy }kjk QthZ cksfjax viuh izxfr esa n'kkZ;s x;s gS tSlk fd mUgksus vius Li"Vhdj.k esa vafdr fd;k gSA ------ i=&4 ,oa cksfjax pkVZ ij voj vfHk;Urk Ay0fl0A ds Hkh gLrk{kj gaS mlds mijkar voj vfHk;Urk Ay0fl0A }kjk eki iqfLrdk esa vadu dj yscj vkfn dk Hkqxrku Hkh djk;k gSA vr% laLrqfr dh tkrh gS fd mDr nksuksa cksfjax dh dSfoV;ksa esa /kujkf'k O;; dh xbZ gS mldh olwyh rRdkyhu voj vfHk;UrkAy0fl0A o Jh jkeQy l0cks0Vs0 ls 50&50 izfr'kr dj yh tk;sA bl izdkj dh iqujko`fRr u gks blds fy;s ,d&,d osru o`f) jksdrs gq;s Hk"kZukRed izfof"V vafdr dh tk;sA Hkonh;A jes'k pUnzA lgk;d vfHk;UrkA y0 fl0A] ,Vk** 19. A perusal of the enquiry report shows that there is no consideration of the reply dated 15.01.1993 submitted by the petitioner to the Charge Sheet dated 28.12.1992 issued to him. A perusal of the enquiry report shows that there is no consideration of the reply dated 15.01.1993 submitted by the petitioner to the Charge Sheet dated 28.12.1992 issued to him. The entire enquiry report is based upon the enquiry done by the enquiry officer himself and he has got the signature of two cultivators on his enquiry. It is further evident that he has castigated the Junior Engineer also in his report as responsible for the lapse to the extent of 50% and has held the petitioner liable for remaining 50% of the loss of public funds. He has also recommended awarding of censure entry and stopping of one increment each of the petitioner as well as the Junior Engineer concerned, without naming him. However, the punishment order dated 22.10.1993 passed by the respondent no.1, Executive Engineer does not records any finding regarding the Junior Engineer nor it apportions the loss of public money between the petitioner and the Junior Engineer concerned. Even the punishment order does not shows any consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, wherein he stated that the cultivators concerned have given their affidavits stating that their borings were duly installed by the petitioner. One cultivator, Raghunath stated that due to family dispute, he has installed the boring in his well instead of the place, where it was installed by the petitioner and his team. The second cultivator, Fateh Singh stated that his boring was installed but it failed after some time. He has got the boring shifted to his another Chak for the purpose of irrigation. The petitioner further stated that the borings in dispute were installed in 1991 and the Junior Engineer himself inspected the work and thereafter the certificate was sent to the Bank for payment, which was made. 20. Not only the defence of the petitioner was ignored, also no witness was called by the enquiry officer for recording statement nor the petitioner was afforded any opportunity to produce his witnesses or to cross examine, the witnesses of the prosecution. Further no copy of the enquiry report of the enquiry officer dated 08.09.1993 was supplied to the petitioner for submitting his objections against the same. The enquiry report aforesaid was obtained ex-party and accepted ex-parte by the respondent no.1, the Executive Engineer. Further no copy of the enquiry report of the enquiry officer dated 08.09.1993 was supplied to the petitioner for submitting his objections against the same. The enquiry report aforesaid was obtained ex-party and accepted ex-parte by the respondent no.1, the Executive Engineer. The punishment order, therefore is absolutely against the law of fair disciplinary enquiry into the misconduct of misappropriation of public money by the government servant. 21. The punishment order dated 22.09.1993 passed by the respondent no.1 has been modified by granting him the salary of the suspension period bythe appellate authority and the revisional authority has refused to entertain the representation of the petitioner. However, the fact remains that once the procedure of enquiry is found to be illegal and the punishment order passed on its basis is also found to be illegal, the subsequent orders of appellate or revisional authorities confirming/partly modifying such an order of punishment can be considered to be legal. 22. The petitioner has brought on record by means of Second Supplementary Affidavit, the boring installation report of Raghunath, which has been signed by the concerned cultivator, Junior Engineer and the Block Development Officer and also the petitioner. He has brought on record the receipts of purchase of the boring pipes pumps etc., the Khatauni of the cultivators, wherein the boring is recorded as the source of irrigation of the plots, he has further brought on record, the receipts issued by the cultivators regarding the receipt of the amount spent by them in the process of boring etc., on record, which have not been controverted by the respondents by means of any documentary evidence. Only reply is that the Certificate of Boring issued by the authorities and annexed by the petitioner in his second Supplementary Affidavit is a forged document. 23. Even without any reliance upon these documents brought by the petitioner on record in this writ petition, as discussed above the entire enquiry proceedings of the respondents and the punishment appellate and revisional orders are absolutely illegal and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. 24. It is further observed that petitioner has been awarded minor and as well as major punishment which the Apex Court has depricated in the case of Union of India Vs. 24. It is further observed that petitioner has been awarded minor and as well as major punishment which the Apex Court has depricated in the case of Union of India Vs. S.C. Parashar (Law (SC) 2006 2 34 in paragraph-12 as follows:- "The penalty imposed upon the respondent is an amalgam of minor penalty and major penalty. The respondent has been inflicted with three penalties : (1) reduction to the minimum of the time-scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect; (2) loss of seniority; and (3) recovery of 25% of the loss incurred by the Government to the tune of Rs.74,341.89p., i.e., Rs.18,585.47p. on account of damage to the Gypsy in 18 (eighteen) equal monthly instalments. Whereas reduction of time-scale of pay with cumulative effect is a major penalty within the meaning of clause (v) of Rule 11 of the CCS Rules, loss of seniority and recovery of amount would come within the purview of minor penalty, as envisaged by clause (iii) and (iii)(a) thereof. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, in our opinion acted illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing both minor and major penalties by the same order. Such a course of action could not have been taken in law." 25. The order dated 22.10.1993, passed by respondent no.1, Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Aligarh, Order dated 27.10.1994 and 07.10.1995, passed by respondent no.2, Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Meerut and Order dated 21.08.1996, passed by the respondent no.3, Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Aligarh are hereby quashed. The respondent nos. 3 and 1 are directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Boring Technician on regular and permanent basis in the Pay Scale of 1200-30-1440-EB-30-1800 w.e.f., 01.11.1993 and grant him the benefit of one years service on the post of Boring Technician, which was denied to him on account of his promotion on the aforesaid post on 01.11.1994 and re-calculate his service benefits accordingly and make payment of the difference of wages to the petitioner with 7% interest within a period of 6 weeks from the date of presentation of the Certified copy of this order before the respondent no.1. 26. Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.