The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a reasonable opportunity for the delinquent to meet the charges, the duty of the disciplinary authority to apply its mind to the entire material on record, and the need for a speaking order in disciplinary proceedings.

Dayanand Lai, the petitioner who was initially appointed as a clerk in Lucknow Judgeship on 3-7-67 after confirmation was transferred and posted as suits clerk in the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow he has been dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 31-1-1996 by the District Judge, Luck-now. The appeal preferred against the said order has also been dismissed vide order dated 1-10-1997. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders the present writ peti tion has been filed.

The petitioner while was posted in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Lucknow as Ahalmad had received thir teen rent appeal files along with lower Court records, but the said lower Court records were not sent by him to the Courts where the appeals were transferred and caused loss of these records. The petitioner remained posted in the said Court from January 1985 upto 20-9-1985. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and on receipt of said enquiry report the Dis trict Judge, Lucknow ordered for a full-fledged departmental enquiry. The Vth Additional District Judge, Lucknow was appointed as inquiry officer. A charge-sheet was framed against the petitioner on 6-3- 90 which was duly approved with slight modification by appointing authority namely, the District Judge, Lucknow. The approved charge- sheet as amended was served upon the petitioner and was duly served by him on 13- 11-1990. The petitioner, however did not submit reply and on 15-11-91,13-12-1991 and on 19-12-91 sought time for submission of his reply to the charge-sheet. On 8-1-1992 the petitioner moved another application seeking further time for submitting his reply to the charge-sheet and also asked for copies of the evidence. The inquiry officer allowed the said application vide order dated 9-1-92 and directed the petitioner to submit his reply by 22-1-92. This order was noted by the petitioner. Despite the aforesaid order the petitioner, however, did not submit his reply and moved various applications, namely, 20-1- 92,1-2-92,14-2-92,5-2-92,5-1-95,18-1-95 and 13-2-95. The petitioner thereafter submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 18-2-95. In his reply the petitioner ad mitted that the lower Court records of the concerned appeals was transferred to his Court and he had received the same. How ever, he submitted

that when the appeals were transferred to another Court, name ly, to the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Lucknow, the petitioner handed over the files to the Suits Clerk of that Court and an entry regarding the same was made in the Dak Bahi. He further alleged that subsequently the appeals were again transferred to the Court of VI Additional District Judge and from there they were transferred to the Court of Vth Additional District Judge, Lucknow. The appeals were again transferred to the Court of VI Additional District Judge and then to the Court of II Additional District Judge and lastly to the Court of III Additional Dis trict Judge, Lucknow.

2. According to the petitioner he had sent the lower Court records to the Court where the files were first time transferred from his Court where he was posted and later on it appears that during various transits the files got misplaced. The petitioner allegedly handed over the files on 13-8-85 to one Sudhir Kumar, Suits Clerk in the Court of VIII Additional Dis trict Judge, Lucknow. Sri Sudhir Kumar did not make any grievance regarding non-receipt of the lower Court record in the appeals. The petitioner further requested in his reply that he desires to examine all the concerned clerks where the files were transferred subsequently.

3. A grievance was also raised that the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet have not been supplied to him.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Dr. L. P. Misra initially laid much emphasis on the validity of the charge-sheet as ac cording to the allegations made in the writ petition it was only a draft charge-sheet which was served upon the petitioner which was not approv