By the Court.—Aggrieved by the orders dated 5.8.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), 08.08.2000 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and 19.12.2000 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby certain minor punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner, the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by means of the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. He has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the said orders.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Rural Engineering Services on 2.8.1972 and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis on 1.5.1981 whereat he was regularised vide order dated 16.4.1995. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.9.1998 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) which contains four charges of non-observance of the procedure prescribed under the Financial Handbook for awarding contract during the period of 1994-95 to 1996-97 when he was working as Executive Engineer to Rural Engineering Services, Gonda, for the period 1994-95 when he was posted at Bahraich in the same capacity and for the year 1990 when he was posted at Pratapgarh. A supplementary charge-sheet dated 1.11.1998 was issued to the petitioner with respect to similar allegations for the period 1989-90 and another supplementary charge-sheet dated 2.12.1998 was issued with respect to the period of 1996-97. The petitioner after receiving the charge-sheet dated 18.9.1998, vide his letter dated 5.11.1998 required the authorities to permit him inspection of the relevant documents. Again reminders were sent on 14.12.1998 and 27.1.1999 pursuant whereto vide letter dated 9.2.1999 the Inquiry Officer directed the concerned Executive Engineers of the respective divisions to make the relevant documents available to the petitioner. It is however said that despite repeated requests made by the petitioner, the documents were not made available to him. Some of the documents, the petitioner, however, could collect on his own from the concerned division and thereafter submitted reply on 8.12.1999 denying all the charges levelled against him. The supplementary charge sheet dated 1.11.1998 was replied by the petitioner vide his letter dated April, 1999 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). It is said that the Inquiry Officer neither fixed any dare for oral inquiry nor in fact held any oral inquiry whatsoever and instead submitted report in respect to charge sheet dated 18.9.1998 which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.4.2000 requiring him to submit his representation. From a perusal thereof the petitioner came to know that the Inquiry Officer earlier submitted his report on 5.2.2000 which was examined by the State Government and thereafter it directed the Inquiry Officer to hold further inquiry and submit a fresh report. Thereupon the Inquiry Officer himself examined documents in various divisions visiting Gonda on 24.2.2000, Pratapgarh on 25.3.2000 and Bahraich on 27.3.2000 where the petitioner was posted at the relevant time and submitted his report on 1.4.2000. The Inquiry Officer found charge No. 1-A with respect to the year 1984-85 when the petitioner was posted at Bahraich not proved. In respect to charge No. 1-B he found that in respect to Horticulture Department, Residential Building, Animal Husbandry and Jawahar Rojgar Yojna the petitioner was responsible for negative expenditure and to that extent charge was proved. The charges No. 2-A and 4 were not found proved, charge No. 2-B with respect to purchase of material, though there was no necessity, was found proved and charge No. 3 was found partly proved. The petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated 7.5.2000 stating that the Inquiry Officer before submitting his report did not give any opportunity to the petitioner and, therefore, the report dated 1.