Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner is a Junior Engineer. He has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order of the Director/Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, dated 8.1.2008 whereby punishment of the recovery of an amount of Rs. 56,526.87, withholding of two annual increments and making two censured entries have been made. His appeal has also been rejected by the Principal Secretary. Both the orders impugned have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 respectively.

2. The short facts leading to the present writ petition are the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in Rural Engineering Services, in November 1987. While he was posted as Junior Engineer at Siddartha Nagar in the year 2003 he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated in terms of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 1999 Rules). A charge-sheet was issued to him on 14.7.2004 (A copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition) wherein one of the charge was that on 10.12.2002 the petitioner deposited 80 drums Bitumen on the main road adjoining the Central Stores, Siddartha Nagar without any information to the Store Junior Engineer. Out of 80 drums of Bitumen 25 drums were stolen on 17.1.2003. Thus the petitioner was charged for the negligence. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet where he denied the charges made against him. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty and a show-cause notice was issued to him on 3rd September, 2007 (a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. However, the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied and the punishment mentioned herein above was imposed on him.

3. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner had filed a writ petition in this Court. However, the writ petition was dismissed by means of order dated 5.2.2008 on the ground of alternative remedy. Thereafter the petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Government in terms of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. (A copy of ground of Appeal is annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition). The said Appeal was also rejected by the State Government.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri U.N. Sharma assisted by Sri Shrikrishana Shukla and learned Standing Counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sharma has submitted that the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as the enquiry report on which the disciplinary authority has placed reliance was obtained behind the back of the petitioner ex parte without any notice or knowledge of the petitioner. He has further pointed out that in the earlier enquiries petitioner was not found guilty. However, the Director/Chief Engineer by means of letter dated 10.5.2007 had asked to ignore the earlier report and a fresh report was called for. Sri Sharma further submitted that no date was fixed for the enquiry and the entire enquiry has been conducted without any intimation of the date and place of the enquiry. Sri Sharma has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Kulwinder Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504; Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P and others, (2000) 7 SCC 90; Mohd. Younus Khan v. State of U.P. and others, (2010) 10 SCC 539 and a Judgment of learned Single Judge passed by this Court in Ashok Kumar Sagar v. High Court of Judiciature at Allahabad (MANU/UP/0782/2011) decided on 20.4.2011.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been given full opportunity as a charge-sheet was issued to him and under Rule 9 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 the Disciplinary Authority has power to order a fresh enquiry. In the present case the Disciplinary Authority has exercised his power under Rule 9 and he aske