IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was wrong in setting aside disciplinary proceeding against respondent on ground that relevant documents were not supplied to him and he was not afforded opportunity of hearing.

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. After holding disciplinary proceedings against the respondent Ramesh Chandra Mangalik, an order of punishment was passed withholding his four increments of salary permanently and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,822/-. The said order was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition filed at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 15.12.1999 setting aside the order of punishment and directing that the respondent would be considered for promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. All consequential benefits were also allowed. The High Court came to the conclusion that the order of punishment was bad in law since principles of natural justice have been violated in holding inquiry due to non supply of copies of all the necessary and relevant documents and for not affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the delinquent. It was also held that no basis for arriving at the figure of the amount sought to be recovered was given. The State Government felt aggrieved by the above order passed by the High Court in the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by Special Leave.

3. The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on 19.2.1963, in the Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. He was later on posted as Assistant Engineer In-charge on 8.5.1979 against the vacant post of Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Construction Division, Matatila. It has been pointed out that as a consequence of some orders passed in the litigation pending in this Court, relating to promotions to the post of Executive Engineer, the Assistant Engineers were not being promoted as Executive Engineers but were posted as Assistant Engineers In-charge. The Junior Engineers and the Assistant Engineers working in any project had been working under the overall supervision of the Assistant Engineer In-charge. During the period 16.5.1979 to 29.3.1981, the respondent had been looking after the execution of the work of the construction of Upper Rajghat Canal, Matalila and in that connection it was found that there was substantial difference in construction of ground levels and there was change in approved L-Section also. According to the Department changes of the alignments of L-Section were made without the approval of the Chief Engineer. As a result of unauthorized changes, the length of canal was increased by 63 metres. Apart from the above, other irregularities were also noticed. It appears that a preliminary inquiry was made and thereafter a charge-sheet was served upon the respondent on 6.4.1984 for regular departmental proceedings.

4. The respondent sought time for filing the explanation to the charge-sheet and demanded copies of certain documents. Since all the documents as required by the respondent are said to have not been made available to him, he had to file a reply ultimately on 8. 4.1987 under protest. A personal hearing was also asked for. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 28.7.1993 on consideration whereof and after going through the other formalities, order of punishment was passed on 21.4.1995 as indicated earlier.

5. According to the respondent, he had himself detected the changes and other irregularities in the work relating to construction of Upper Rajghat Canal but he got the whole thing corrected without allowing any loss to occur to the Government. It has also been his case that the inquiry proceedings initiated against him are mala fide and at the instance of one Shri Ahuja, the Superintending Engineer. It has also been indicated that he was prosecuted in a criminal case of a trap laid against him but he was acquitted of the charges. We may however clarify here that the charges in the criminal case have no connection or bearing so far the departmental proceedings in question are concerned. The main grievance of the respondents, as indicated earlier, has been that principles of