SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. Petitioner- K.D. Aggarwal, was working as Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. S.M. Aggawal, Additional District Judge, Delhi. On 20th September, 1994, aforesaid court reported about missing of five execution files as detailed in the Enquiry Report (Annexure P-12). On 12th May, 1997, petitioner was charge sheeted for the loss of the above said execution files. In the Enquiry held against the petitioner three witnesses had deposed, whereas the petitioner himself had deposed in his defence. On 26th May, 2001, Enquiry Officer submitted her Report (Annexure P-12) holding the petitioner guilty of gross negligence and carelessness. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the District and Session Judge, Delhi, vide Order of 17th May, 2004, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner while holding as under:-

Being an Ahlmad the charged official should have acted very carefully, cautiously and diligently but he has not taken care of these attributes resulting in the loss of 5 judicial files and has thus acted with gross negligence and carelessness. I may mention that this is not his first and the only case of loss of records. There have been 7 (seven) enquiries of loss of files against him. He has been exonerated in two enquiries. 5 (five) enquiries are still pending. In the year 2002, his Presiding Officer has given him the remark „doubtful? regarding integrity. I am mentioning this because evidently he has become habitually negligent and carefree not realizing that loss of Court file means loss of faith of the public in the judicial systems. So in a way he is subverting the Justice Delivery System. He, therefore, in my view, deserves no sympathy and is not a fit person to continue in the Court service. I, therefore, impose a punishment of dismissal from service upon Sh. K.D. Aggarwal, Reader of this office with immediate effect. Formal order be issued..

2. The effect of impugned Orders (Annexures- P-1 & P-2) passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the same day, is same.

3. Instead of preferring a statutory appeal, petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned Order of „dismissal from service? on the ground that the evidence led during the enquiry does not support the charges framed against him. It is pointed out that there is no documentary evidence to show that the files in question were lost during the period when the petitioner was working as Ahlmad. It is pointed out that the lost files had moved from petitioner’s table to the table of the Nazir and the Nazir- Mr. Karimullah Khan is infact responsible for the loss/ misplacing of the files in question. During the course of the arguments attention of this Court was drawn to the evidence of Nazir- Karimullah to point out that he had not obtained the signatures of Ahlmad in token of having returned the file as there was no such procedure.

4. In view of the aforesaid, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that evidence on record does not prove the charge against the petitioner. In substance, the stand of the petitioner is as follows:-

“(i) Since it is confirmed by District Nazir (Karimullah Khan) that payment vouchers were made in the said Execution Files/ Payment Files, it is evident that the files were given by the Petitioner to District Nazir. (ii) Ahlmads were over burdened. As is evident from the statement of Karimullah Khan also, Ahlmad and District Nazir were not maintaining any record/register for movement of files.

(iii) Once the file was delivered to the Nazarat, the evidence must be with Nazarat to show that the file was in fact returned to the petitioner /Ahlmad. (iv) When payment voucher was made and order was passed by the Presiding Officer Shri T.S. Oberoi, the file becomes a „disposed of case?. (v) Unfortunately, CW3 Karimullah Khan was placed under suspension. He left without handing over charge to the new Nazir Harphool Singh. Harphool Singh must have made a list of the files, but the possibility of consigning