Violation of principles of natural justice and non-payment of subsistence allowance led to the quashing of the ex parte inquiry and dismissal order.

R. B. MISHRA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition No. 7133 of 2001 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the ex parte Inquiry report and for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect or not to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of the ex parte inquiry report against him. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to get the Inquiry conducted, if any, against the petitioner through any competent authority of any department other than the present one which is under the ministry of sri Markandey Chand, the Minister for Rural Engineering Services and Minor Irrigation department Government of U. P. The petitioner has made initially five respondents, e. g. , (i) The chief Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh. (ii) Sri Markandey Chand. Minister for Rural engineering Services and Minor Irrigation Department. (iii) The Secretary. Minor Irrigation department and Rural Engineering Services, (iv) Sri AJai Kumar Joshi. Secretary Minor irrigation Department and Rural Engineering Services, (v) Sri R. P. Birla. Inquiry officer/superintending Engineer Rural Engineering Services. Varanasi Circle and (vi) The Uttar pradesh Public Service Commission Allahabad through its Secretary. The petitioner has. however, finally Indicated that he is not willing to press the allegations of mala fide made against original respondent No. 2 (i. e. , Sri Markandey Chand) and the respondent No. 5 (Sri R. P. Birla ). The petitioner subsequently filed an amendment application dated 30. 3. 2001 seeking a direction in the nature of certiarari to quash the dismissal order dated 27. 3. 2001 passed by respondent No. 3 and the same was allowed by this Court.

( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary in the case are that the petitioner was recruited initially as Junior engineer and was promoted as Assistant Engineer and was posted as incharge Executive engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Ballia from 14. 7. 1995 to 24. 7. 1997. It is alleged that the district Magistrate. Ballta, wrote a letter to the State Government that a departmental inquiry against the petitioner should be conducted for his involvement in embezzlement and financial loss of money to the State Government. It is also alleged that a vertical audit report was also made by the Accountant General, U. P. , for financial irregularities committed by the petitioner. It is also alleged that the trouble started when the petitioner claimed his regularisation as an executive Engineer and he could not please the Honble Minister, therefore, he had to approach the U. P. Public Service Tribunal whereby the main claim of the petitioner along with his seniority became final having not been challenged further by the department. However, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 22. 12. 1998 [enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and Sri Ram Prakash. Chief Engineer Eastern Zone, Rural Engineering services was appointed as Inquiry Officer. A detailed charge-sheet was framed against the petitioner for huge financial loss caused by unauthorised work and making negative payment (i. e. , for drawing more amount than sanctioned for the work) causing financial loss by purchasing unnecessary materials. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension in Writ petition No. 928 of 1999 on the ground of mala fide and this Court on being prima facie satisfied stayed the operation of the suspension by its order dated 12. 4. 1999. However, despite the stay of suspension of the petitioner, he was neither reinstated nor was paid subsistence allowance or his regular salary. After the superannuation of Sri Ram Prakash, Chief Engineer the Inquiry officer on 30. 4,1999, the State Government appointed after about four months, one Sri R. P. Birla the superintending Engineer who is alleged to be yes man of Honble the Minister (as indicated in paragraph 15 of the writ petition) and at whose instance and complaint, the inquiry against the