By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.6.2009 passed by respondent 1 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner while working as Senior Consultant (Pathology) at Gautam Budh Nagar was served a charge-sheet for preparing a fake medical report with respect to the rape of a lady after taking bribe of Rs. 5000/-. This was revealed during the Sting Operation of India T.V. Consequently an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner in Case Crime No. 696 of 2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. read with Sections 7 of 13 (1) d, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act at police station Noida Gautam Budh Nagar. Thereafter petitioner was sent to jail and remained there for more than 48 hours. Consequently, he was suspended on the ground that he remained in jail for more than 48 hours. Thereafter a charge-sheet dated 10.1.2008 was served on the petitioner in which the petitioner was charged for violation of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956 and also with respect to the preparation of fake inquiry report on the fake address of a lady with respect to the rape case. The petitioner was also required to submit his reply within fifteen days. The petitioner thereafter submitted his reply and denied the charges. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report on 4.4.2008, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

3. From the perusal of enquiry report it transpires that the Inquiry Officer has not found the charges proved. It appears that thereafter another report was submitted on 28.5.2008 this is not part of the record of the writ petition but the learned Standing Counsel has produced the same before us on our direction which is directed to be taken on record and after considering the aforesaid report the respondent No. 1 has dismissed the petitioner from service after getting approval of Public Service Commission.

4. Sri Swapnil Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in derogation of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 particularly there is a gross violation of Rule 7 as no oral inquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to say something about the second inquiry report. He has also submitted that the alleged inquiry report dated 28.5.2008 was never supplied to the petitioner, therefore, in absence of the notice any conclusion drawn thereon is unsustainable in the eye of law. He has further submitted that in the inquiry report dated 4.4.2008 petitioner was exonerated from the charge levelled against him. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and writ deserves to be allowed after quashing the impugned order of dismissal.

5. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as the petitioner was found guilty of preparing the fake injury report on the forged address that too after taking bribe, therefore, the order impugned cannot be faulted with. He has also submitted that there is a very limited scope for judicial interference with respect to the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority in disciplinary proceeding. In the submissions of learned standing counsel the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. .

6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no oral inquiry was conducted and the impugned order of punishment has been passed de-horse the Rules of 1999 meant for conducting the disciplinary proceeding. The averments with respect to non-conducting the oral enquiry has been made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. For appreciat