The petitioner by way of this writ petition seeks to challenge order dated 24/31.03.1999 whereby he has been dismissed from service and also the appellate order dated 29.12.1999 whereby the appeal preferred by him has been rejected.

2. Facts which are required to be noted for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner D.V. Singh was working as Manager Survey in Phosphate Division at Jhamarkotra Mines under the Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited. Vide memorandum dated 31.03.1997 he was served with a charge-sheet and the charges which were levelled against him were as under:

“1. That during the period 08.09.1994 to December 1995 certain serious irregularities in reporting quantity of excavation in DEH area in the running bills (I-XIII) of M/s G.V. Pratap Reddy, Contractor were observed showing an excess quantity of excavation to the extent of 1,20,221 BCM than actual and accordingly the excess payment of Rs.66,42,210.25 was released to the contractor.

2. That the final bill (XIV) of M/s G.V. Pratap Reddy was certified by you showing further additional excavation of 850 BCM.

3. That while handing over the charge at Jhamarkotra Mines on account of your transfer to Keshriaji Green Marble Project you have replaced the level books pertaining to running bills Nos. XII, XIII & XIV (final) survey maintained in the department and manipulated the office records, during your stay at Jhamarkotra Mines. At this stage the changes made were found to be against the interest of the company causing financial losses and thereby allowing undue benefit to the contractor M/s G.V. Pratap Reddy.

4. That you have omitted the plotting of many of original ground levels resulting in excess area of excavation in favour of contractor. You have also erased the plotting of the survey in respect of 1st to XIIIth running bills of the contractor M/s G.V. Pratap Reddy.

5. That in spite of repeated instructions you have failed to submit the survey records to the Chief Manager (Mining) in time with the intention of altering the official records and to conceal your acts of commission and omission against the interest of the company.”

3. A Statement making imputation of misconduct in support of the charges was also conveyed to him. On receiving the chargesheet, the petitioner submitted his reply on 09.04.1997 pointing out that the working methodology and arrangement prevailing at Jhamarkotra Mines over last decade was that in cases of departmental rock handling whenever there has been a shortfall in achieving annual target, in order to meet that target/minimize difference in the annual reporting quaterly survey quantity are being increased as per verbal instructions of senior mining officials and this fact is very much in knowledge of all concerned officials. Such increase was being adjusted later on. He being a subordinate officer, had no other option but to obey the officers of senior officials even though the same were oral/verbal.

4. In the said background, it was stated by petitioner that for the concerned contractor M/s G.V. Pratap Reddy, he was directed at the end of financial year 1994-95 to increase the quantity with the definite assurance that the same shall be made good subsequently. The Engineer in-charge gave specific oral instructions to him and it was his case that he has been forced to prepare Level Books pertaining to running bills on the basis of reported quantity by the Engineer in-charge, who was ultimately responsible for passing of the running bills.

5. In short and in essence, it was case of the petitioner that the entire action taken by the petitioner was in good faith and trust and as per directions/instructions of his superior officers including the Engineer in-charge who was his controlling officer and it was prayed by him that he should be exonerated as this practice was followed by him as a subordinate officer with full knowledge of his superior officers.

6. The Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry report was made ava