RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15 -1 -2000 passed by the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, U.P. Lucknow, Annexure -5 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on 25 -3 -1995 as a driver at Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Noorpur, Distt. Bijnor by the respondent. He joined the post in the department on 10 -4 -1995. On 30 -11 -1999 a show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent directing him to submit the original driving licence issued by the R.T.O., Mumbai alongwith his reply within fifteen days alleging that the petitioner had obtained appointment by fraud, which is punishable and is a misconduct for which major penalty can be imposed. The petitioner vide letter dated 20 -12 -1999 sought fifteen days more time to submit required document alongwith his reply.
(3.) THE petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 15 -1 -2000 on the ground that he had obtained employment on the basis of forged driving licence. It has been challenged on the ground that before passing the impugned order dated 15 -1 -2000, the respondent neither served any charge -sheet upon the petitioner nor disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999: (a) The petitioner submitted that his services could not be terminated without following the procedure as contemplated in the said Rules, which came into force with effect from 9th June, 1999 as neither any charge -sheet was served nor any Inquiry Officer was conducted. (b) Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules, 1999, which is mandatory in nature, prescribes that before imposing of any major penalty on a Government servant, an enquiry shall be held in the manner and procedure provided therein. (c) On the basis of said rule it is contended that it was incumbent upon the respondent before passing the impugned order against the petitioner to hold the full fledged disciplinary proceedings and this was not done by the respondent, the termination is vitiated being illegal and contrary to statutory rules and principles of natural justice. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993)3 SCC 259; Gulzar Singh v. S.D.M. and another, (1999)3 SCC 107; Basudeo Tiwary v. SIDO Kanhu University and others, (1998)8 SCC 194 and Ram Vikas v. State of U.P. and others, (2002)1 UPLBEC 352. The apex Court in High Court of Judicature at Mumbai through its Registrar Shashikant v. Patil and another, (2000)1 SCC 416 (Para 16), has also held that interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if such authority had held proceeding in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulation prescribing the mode of such enquiry. ;