The court emphasized the importance of fair hearing and non-discrimination in disciplinary proceedings, holding that waiver of procedural rights and submission of reports can establish responsibility, and discriminatory punishment is violative of constitutional provisions.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri N. K. Pandey appearing for the petitioner and Sri Rajni Kant Tiwari, learned standing counsel.

( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

( 3 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 26th august, 1996, passed by respondent No. 1 and the enquiry report dated 30th March, 1995 and 22nd November, 1995. A writ of mandamus has further been prayed for direction to the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 26th August, 1996.

( 4 ) THE facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are : the petitioner was appointed on 1st July, 1963, in the Sales Tax Department on a class III post. He was confirmed in 1974. From 1979 to 1986, the petitioner was posted as Noter and Drafter in district Sultanpur. In 1986, he was promoted on the post of Senior Assistant and was transferred. A charge-sheet dated 18th December, 1990, was issued to the petitioner levelling three charges. Copy of the charge-sheet has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Charge Nos. 1 and 2 were to the effect that petitioner on the application of traders for issuance of Form 31 showed more amounts than actual deposit amount and has thus helped the traders to get Form-31 illegally causing loss of revenue. Charge No. 3 was to the effect that before submitting report on the applications of the traders for issuance of Form-31, the petitioner did not see the departmental copy of challans nor verified the deposited amount from daily receipt register. It was alleged that petitioner committed gross carelessness and ignored the departmental circulars. In the charge-sheet evidences were mentioned which included daily receipt register of 1980-81, copies of application for giving Form-31 containing the report of the petitioner, the assessment files of the relevant firms and the Sales Tax Manual providing procedure on the aforesaid. After receiving the charge-sheet, petitioner submitted an application on 7th January, 1991, praying that he should be shown files for the year 1980-81 of Raja Coal Concern and Commission Agent. Vijay coal Suppliers and Commission Agent. Singh Coal Agency and dally receipt register and other correspondences on the matter. Petitioner further prayed that he should be shown sates tax memo. Petitioner further prayed that he should be given personal hearing from Daily Receipt clerk and Ledger Keeper. The Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 24th January, 1991, asked the petitioner that he should disclose the name of all those Ledger Keepers and Daily Receipt Clerk whom he wants to cross-examine. Details of documents which petitioner wants to peruse would also be mentioned. Petitioner in reply to the aforesaid letter gave names of five Ledger Keepers and one Kaushal Nand, Daily Receipt Clerk. Petitioner also prayed that he should be shown daily receipt register and other relevant files. The Enquiry Officer vide his letter dated 8th April, 1991, asked the petitioner to appear in Divisional Office, Sultanpur, for seeing the records. It was further stated in the letter that no further date would be given to the petitioner since certain records are in police custody, which will be required to be called. The petitioner appeared on 7th may, 1991 but on that date, he was not shown the documents as stated by Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted a reply on 16th May, 1991 to the charges. In the reply, he stated that he has not been shown the daily receipt register and relevant flies due to the fact that they were in the police custody. He further stated in the reply that he has only been shown the duplicate file. The petitioner also complained that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but on the basis of personal memory, he is replying the charges. Enquiry Officer again wrote a letter on 25th July, 1991, asking the petitioner to appear