Barin Ghosh and Madhavendra Saran JJ.

1. While appointed as Deputy Director of Accounts, the writ petitioner, respondent in these appeals, superannuated on 31.7.1994. He was then re-employed w.e.f 7.2.95. While the writ petitioner respondent was in re-employment a letter was issued to him on 21.9.1995 alleging therein that he made payment on 17.3.92 in respect of supply of certain chemicals, but on test the same turned out to be not the chemicals intendended to be purchased, but were 99 percent water. In the letter it was stated that by reason of the same, the employer has suffered loss of Rs. 7,80,000.00. The letter expressed prima facie view of the fact that such loss was occasioned by reason of the action of the writ petitioner, respondent, in making the payment. The letter however concluded by saying that the writ petitioner respondent is called upon to explain within fortnight of the receipt of the letter as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The re-employment of the writ petitioner respondent came to an end on 6.2.1996.

2. On 25.4.1996 a charge sheet was issued against the writ petitioner, respondent. In that it was contended that by