( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are represented by Sri Tarun Verma, who has accepted notice vide endorsement on the petition, dated February 5, 2004.

( 2 ) ALL the respondents are represented. 1 his petition can be decided without calling for the counter and rejoinder affidavits. We decide this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, finally, at the admission stage itself, as contemplated under Chapter xxii Rule 2 (1), second proviso, Rules of the court, 1952.

( 3 ) PETITIONER, Sunder was serving as casual labour with temporary status in North eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. He was served with a memorandum of charge sheet on september 6, 1989 proposing major penalty on the charge of unauthorised absence. Petitioner claimed that he was never served with charge sheet. The Departmental inquiry proceeded. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated april 17, 1990 before Disciplinary Authority which considered it and passed following order:"on careful consideration of the enquiry Officers report; i agree with the findings of the E. O. I have come to the conclusion that Shri sunder son of Ghun