The court emphasized the significance of affording a fair and reasonable opportunity in the enquiry proceedings and highlighted the violation of Principles of Natural Justice in the dismissal of the petitioner.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13. 9. 2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 3, by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

( 2 ) THE brief necessary facts as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner Joined the service of the department of Minor Irrigation of the U. P. Government as Assistant Engineer in december. 1980 and was promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer vide order dated 11. 9. 1989 and thereafter he was also given the officiating charge on the post of Superintending Engineer, jhansi Circle. It has been stated that regular promotion of the petitioner to the post of superintending Engineer under the reserved quota fell due, and as he was the senior most executive Engineer under the reserved quota. negotiations were started at the instance of the minister concerned but as the petitioner did not agree, he was subjected to harassment by way of transfer, suspension, withdrawal of financial power, reversion and ultimately the Impugned order of dismissal. The petitioner states that against the orders of transfer. suspension, withdrawal of financial powers and reversion, etc. petitioner approached this Court from time to time by filing writ petitions, upon which at all the stages the petitioner was given interim protection by this court. Details in this respect have been given in para 4 of the writ petition. In respect to the irregularity which is said to have been committed by the petitioner in the year 1994-95, 1995-96 while posted in Ghazipur Division, a disciplinary proceeding was started and by the order dated 13th May. 1999, Gomti Singh/ respondent No. 6 was appointed as enquiry officer. It is said that gomti Singh, the enquiry officer was related to the concerned Minister (Sri Markandey Chand), who has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the writ petition and as there happened to be motive on the part of the concerned Minister against the petitioner, repeated requests were made to change the enquiry officer, in respect of which a direction was also given by this Court in Writ petition No. 28512 of 1999 on 16. 3. 2001 (vide Annexure-7 to the petition) but the enquiry was got completed through the above mentioned Gomti Singh. After completion of the enquiry, a show cause notice was Issued to the petitioner on 12th June, 2000 to which petitioner submitted a reply on 15th July, 2000 and thereafter respondent No. 3 Issued the impugned order by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service and it is this order which has made the petitioner aggrieved, to come up to this Court.

( 3 ) IN response to the facts as mentioned in the writ petition, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. respondent No. 2 and U. P. Public Service Commission to which rejoinder-affidavit was also filed. On 15. 1. 2002 after hearing arguments from both the sides, judgment was reserved. Thereafter on 18. 1. 2002 a supplementary counter-affidavit was filed with permission of the Court on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to which a supplementary rejoinder-affidavit was also filed. At that stage, we asked learned counsel for the parties whether they would like to submit any further arguments in the light of the affidavit, which has been filed on 18. 1. 2002 but counsel for all the parties submitted that no further hearing is required.

( 4 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings as have been set forth in this writ petition and the material brought on record.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds :

(i) The enquiry proceedings against the petitioner were in utter violation of the Principles of natural Justice which alone vitiates the impugned punishment. (ii) The disciplinary authority has not properly construed the effect of the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.