In a proceeding against a Government servant, the Department is expected to state the charges clearly in the light of the duties and responsibilities in a matter and then produce the record showing the same and then fix the responsibility and then to find out whether the delinquent officer had transgressed to the limit and had failed to act in accordance with the duties and responsibilities assigned to him.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, who was Junior Engineer, in the M. C. D. , has filed this writ petition. Acharge memo was issued to him on 25. 4. 1984. The statement of allegations against the petitioner is:

"shri P. K. Jain, was posted as Junior Engineer in the Building Department. City Zone in the year 1982 and Ward No. 1i, including Katra Lachu Singh, was under his charge. Huge unauthorised construction of a commercial nature was carried out in premises No. 19997/ii,katra Lachu Singh. He booked the unauthorised construction of 8 shops in the said premises on l6. 10. 1982 vide file No. 361/ii/ CZ dated 16. 10. 1982 but served the show cause notice upon the builder only on 19. 10. 1982 i. e. after adelay of 3 days. Inquiries in the said case were made by the ADC/ City Zone and theexecutive Engineer (Co-od) and Shri P. K. Jain had been found responsible for the following lapses/irregularities: 1. That he served the show cause notice dated 16. 10. 1982 on 19. 10. 1982 after a delay of 3 days. 2. That the said unauthorised construction file No. 361/ii/cz dated 16. 10. 1982 remained with him and the Zonal Engineer from 26. 10. 82 to 17. 11. 1982 but he failed to process the case further to obtain demolition orders. Ultimately, the party obtained stay order from the Court of law on 8. 11. 1982 against the show cause notice. He, thus, helped the builder and failed to take proper action on the said file. 3. That the unauthorised construction of 8 shops with passage at ground floor, 6 shops with passage at first floor, 2 rooms, one kitchen and bath and 2. shops at II floors and 3 rooms with kitchen and bath at 3rd floor were found being construction on 23. 11. 1982 by the Zonal Engineer (B ). Thus, the unauthorised construction continued from 16. 10. 1982 to 23. 11. 1982 but he failed to launch regular prosecutions. He prosecuted the part)" 5 times during this period, though the work remained in progress. Despite the instructions issued on the subject by the SE-IV,vide No. 54/c dated 22. 9. 1982, no regular prosecutions were done under the. various sections of the DMC Act, 1957. 4. That Shri Jain, failed to take the photographs of the said huge unauthorised construction and the existing building to find out the factual position as per the orders of the Commissioner, M. C. D. issued under No. PSC/5804/82 dated 20. 10. 1982. He,thus, failed to comply with the said instructions. 5. That he did not initiate the case for obtaining counter stay against the occupancy and use of the premises which should have been done by him when the party had obtained stay on 8. 11. 1982. From the foregoing, it is evident that Shri P. K. Jain caused unnecessary delay in dealing with the said case and did not obtain demolition orders from the Zonal Engineer (B) after issuing show cause notice on 19. 10. 1982 and failed to take proper and timely action, besides, being negligent. Shri P. K. Jain, thus, committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain devotion to duty and absolute integrity and, thereby, contravened Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as amended from time to time and made applicable to the employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. "

( 2 ) AN inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 11. 4. 1986. On the basis of the report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order removing the petitioner from service on21. 10. 1986. The petitioner preferrd an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal byorder dated 28. 9. 1987. The petitioner has challenged those orders.

( 3 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mukul Rohtagi submitted that on the basis of the materials available before the Inquiry Officer there was no evidence against him and the findings rendered by the Inquiry Officer are based on no evidence. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority had concurred with the view taken by the Inquiry Officer and they had not analysed the correctness of t