Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri K.M. Asthana learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit have been exchanged between the parties.

2. When this writ petition was filed in the year 2000 learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that availability of a statutory alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 and this Court had, therefore, entertained the writ petition and recorded that if the principles of natural justice have been violated and proper procedure has not been followed, then writ petition can be entertained as also for consideration as to whether the dismissal is highly disproportionate to the misconduct even if it be taken to have been established against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed after holding of an enquiry. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, he had raised a question of bias against the Sub Divisional Officer who had initiated the enquiry on the ground that the charges made against the petitioner related to abusing the said Sub Divisional Officer. For this submission, he has placed reliance upon two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee and others, (1993) 4 SCC 10 and in the case of Tilak Chand Magatram Obhan v. Kamala Prasad Shukla and others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 21.

4. The second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the principles of natural justice have been grossly violated by the enquiry officer. He did not supply the relevant documents/name of witnesses who were to be relied upon even during the enquiry proceedings and therefore, the petitioner has been prejudiced in his defence. He places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India, Supreme Court Service Rulings Volume 6 Page 614 : (1987) Supp SCC 518 as also on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another, (1998) 6 SCC 651.

5. It has been stated that even after submission of the enquiry report by the enquiry officer who was the Tehsildar, the Sub Divisional Officer who was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner had been influenced by the recommendation of the enquiry officer inasmuch as the disciplinary authority was himself associated with the entire proceedings and for the aforesaid submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 to contend that the procedure prescribed under the Rules for imposing major penalties is mandatory and in the present case, the various sub-clauses of the Rule have been violated and hence the entire proceedings are bad. He has referred to Rule 7(iii) to state that the charges are required to be precise and clear and in the present case, the charges themselves were vague and the witnesses/documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were not the only evidence considered by enquiry officer. According to him, the witnesses who have been examined by the enquiry officer and upon whose statement the conclusions have been arrived, were never mentioned in the charge-sheet and therefore, there has been a violation of the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules. The further submission is that the provisions of Rule 7(ix) and (x) have been violated inasmuch as no date, time or place was fixed for the enquiry proceedings and therefore, the petitioner has been prejudiced for violation not only of the mandatory provisions but also the principles of natural justice.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has referred to the charge