( 1 ) THE order dated 31. 7. 1990 contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, has since been challenged in this writ petition.

( 2 ) MR. P. N. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, had assailed the said order on the ground that the alleged charges in respect whereof the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, were based on the complaint of the disciplinary authority being Mr. S. N. Srivastava. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bindaki, therefore, he having been the complainant, he could not have passed the order as disciplinary authority on the principle that both the complainant and the disciplinary authority had combined in one. He secondly contends that in the enquiry report dated 29. 6. 1990 the petitioner was found not guilty in respect of charge Nos, 1, 2 and 4. The petitioner was found guilty only of charge No. 3. According to the learned counsel, said charge no. 3 was not grave enough so as to warrant an order of removal from service. He also contended that none of the charges were so serious to warrant major penalty to removal from service. He next contended that the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the enquiry report and passed the orde