SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Saroj Yadav, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 19.9.2000 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 6.10.2001 passed by the appellate authority, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge no.3 has not, in fact, been proved. The petitioner acted bonafidely with due diligence. The contract to Muzeebur Rahman has not been awarded, because he did not furnish 10% security/earnest money, which is the requirement under the contract. On account of his refusal to deposit 10% security, his contract has been cancelled, the further contract has been awarded to Sri Gurudutt Ram. It is not the case of the respondents that in the similar nature of contract, namely white washing etc., the contract has been awarded without taking the security of 10%. The contract has also not been awarded to Muzeebur Rahman on the ground that in past he could not complete the awarded contract. A detailed explanations have been given by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer and before the disciplinary authority, but neither the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority has considered the explanation in its right perspective and, therefore, the order is vitiated.