The duty of the competent authority to maintain accurate service records and the significance of other relevant records in ascertaining the genuineness of an employee's appointment.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record also.

2. Here is a case of a Sinchpal (Irrigation Patrol), who has filed the present petition claiming before the Court that he was appointed as Sinchpal (Irrigation Patrol) on 1. 7. 1988 in Sarayu Nahar Khand-ll, Balrampur Gonda. It appears from the record that after joining the department, a Service Book was also prepared by the office, which was duly verified on 16. 4. 1988. The Service Book of a Government Servant is prepared in order to maintain entire service history of the concerned employee under the relevant Financial Rules as per the Fundamental Rules of the relevant Financial Hand Book. The Court has also perused various pages of the Service Book of the petitioner. After preparation of the Service Book of an employee, it has to be duly verified by the competent authority, which in the present case has- also been done on 19. 7. 1993 by the Executive Engineer, Sarayu Canal Division, Varanasi-Gyanpur. The entries recorded in the Service Book of the petitioner were duly verified by the subsequent Executive Engineers. The last entry in the Service Book of the petitioner is of 19th July, 1993. It is also apparent from the Service Book that the petitioner was granted increments, crossed Efficiency Bar, which means that his services were found satisfactory at the relevant, his services were confirmed and he also received higher pay scale admissible to him.

3. Lateron, after about ten years, a controversy was raised regarding induction of the petitioner in the Irrigation department and the very appointment order on the basis of which he was appointed as Sinchpal was doubted. Petitioners services were terminated vide order dated 1st of May, 1998. This order of termination was assailed by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition No. 16311 of 1998, which was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. However, Special Appeal No. 500

of 1998, preferred against the said order, was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 17th December, 1998, The Division Bench relegated the matter to the concerned Superintending Engineer to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner. The Executive Engineer, vide order dated 2nd September, 1999, had rejected claim of the petitioner giving rise to the cause of action to the petitioner to prefer another writ petition, that is, Writ Petition No. 44031 of 1999, Dilip Kumar Raiv Superintending Engineer, Drainage Mandal, Ballia in this Court. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 9th November, 2005, has recorded some findings which have been perused by the Court. The Court had found that it was difficult to believe that a candidate, who had worked for several years, discharged his duties, functions and responsibilities of the post, could be branded as a person having worked on the post without issuance of a formal appointment order. The Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner had not only worked in the Department, but had also enjoyed all the benefits flowing therefrom including payment of salary, leave encashment etc. However, the concerned Executive Engineer was directed to hold a full-fledged enquiry in the light of the directions concerned in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 17th December, 1998 within a stipulated period.

4. In pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge, the Executive Engineer has dealt with the matter and disposed of the representation of the petitioner on 21st April, 2006. The only ground which has been taken, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer this time, was that the petitioner had failed to submit a copy of his initial appointment order issued to him by the Departmental authorities.

5. The petitioner has, thus, again approached this Court by