- (1.) The petitioner was a Junior Engineer in the State's Irrigation Department and in the year 1975 was posted at Banda. In the construction work of a main canal and sub-canal in the year 1978-79 certain irregularities were noticed for which a preliminary enquiry was conducted and thereupon charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner. On his filing explanation, enquiry was held and he, on being found guilty, was dismissed from service. It transpires from the copy of the dismissal order, Annexure-7 that petitioner while discharging duties as engineer committed certain mistakes in the measurement of earth work and other works as a result excess payment was made to the contractor. Initially he was put under suspension, but since there was delay in conclusion of the enquiry, he was reinstated. The first enquiry officer was changed and the second enquiry officer on conclusion of enquiry, found him guilty of some charges. Consequently, the Chief Engineer by order dated 23.7.1984, Annexure-7, dismissed him from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the order of dismissal, but was unsuccessful. He then moved the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. Upon hearing, the Tribunal, by judgment and order dated 11.10.1995 dismissed the petition, challenging which he has filed the present writ petition seeking for quashing of the said order and commanding the respondents to treat him as continuing in service and to pay him all back wages with all consequential service benefits.
(2.) On being noticed, respondents have filed return traversing the assertions made in the writ petition.
(3.) The main thrust of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was two fold ; namely, that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner before taking the decision dismissing him from service, as a consequence he was denied of the opportunity to reply to the said report ; and secondly, that the punishment imposed upon him is disproportionate to the charge, inasmuch as the mistakes committed by him as indicated in the charge-sheet were not grave and serious and since no one is infallible and such mistakes are bound to occur in one's service career, minor punishment as provided in the service rules, should have been awarded. It was further contended that petitioner had unblemished career and had earned no adverse remark throughout the service period and it being not the case of respondent that excess measurement was done by him to earn pecuniary gain from the contractor, punishment of dismissal from service which affects his right to life as well as his family members should not have been imposed. In that view of the matter, urged the learned counsel for the petitioner, punishment being quite disproportionate to the charge should be set at naught and since more than twenty years have passed in the meantime, instead of remanding the matter to the authority concerned, the Court should substitute appropriate punishment by reversing the order of dismissal and reinstate the petitioner in service.;