- (1.) SINCE the respondents have already filed counter-affidavit, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit and on the basis of the pleadings available on record the writ petition may be heard and decided. Learned Standing Counsel did not object to the said request and, therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally under the Rules of the Court at the admission stage.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 27. 4. 2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby the State Government has imposed punishment of recovery of Rs. 6,955 upon the petitioner, besides censure entry, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 28. 8. 2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) containing two charges. The petitioner submitted his reply denying all the charges whereafter oral inquiry was conducted by Chief Engineer, Azamgarh Region P. W. D. , Azamgarh who submitted his inquiry report dated 25. 2. 2004 holding both the charges not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, disagreeing with the inquiry report, issued show cause notice dated 30. 7. 2004 holding the petitioner guilty of one of the charge with respect to repair of Bansdih-Sahatwar road wherein it is alleged that the thickness of the crust was found less than the prescribed norms for which the petitioner was guilty and consequently he was directed to make representation, if any, within 15 days. The petitioner submitted his reply on 21. 10. 2004 whereafter the impugned order of punishment has been passed by respondent No. 1 imposing the aforesaid punishments. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire proceeding conducted by the respondent No. 1 after receiving inquiry report, wherein the petitioner was exonerated of both the charges, is clearly illegal and contrary to Rule 9 (2) of the U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "1999 Rules" ). He has submitted that no finding has been recorded by the disciplinary authority on disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer and the show cause notice dated 30. 7. 2004 does not contain any finding and reasons at all which were required to be recorded by the disciplinary authority while showing its disagreement under the rules, and, hence, the entire subsequent order of punishment is also illegal.
(3.) THE respondents have filed counter-affidavit wherein the facts as stated are not disputed. However it is submitted that the disciplinary authority found one of the charge proved against the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order of punishment has been issued which is absolutely correct and in accordance with law. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;