Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard Mr. Hemendra Pratap, Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Radhapati Singh (petitioner) has assailed the order dated 28.3.1990 contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition, whereby he was compulsorily retired from services. He has also prayed for declaring the F.R. 56 (e) Explanation (2) as arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. It is relevant to add here that during pendency of the instant writ petition, sole petitioner Radhapati Singh expired and as such, his legal heirs were substituted in the array of petitioners, as stated hereinabove.

4. Radhapati Singh (petitioner), on completion of Apprenticeship, was appointed as Overseer in the U.P. Public Works Department vide office memorandum dated 18.11.1955. He was subsequently approved by the U.P. Public Service Commission in the year 1959. In the year 1973, the designation of the post of Overseer was changed to Junior Engineer (Civil). Thereafter, his services were governed by U.P. Public Works Department Subordinate Engineering Services, 1951, according to which, his appointing authority is the Chief Engineer, which has been designated as Engineer-in-Chief.

5. While Radhapati Singh was posted as Junior Engineer in Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Sitapur from 13.6.1978 to 10.9.1979, an FIR relating to Case No. 465 of 1980 under Section 406/409 I.P.C. was lodged against him with respect to pilferage of 60 mazphalt drums. On this ground, vide order dated 28.5.1985, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of inquiry by the Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Public Works Department, U.P., Lucknow. Thereafter, Sri Satish Chandra Gupta, Superintending Engineer, was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 20.12.1985 and a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, to which the petitioner tendered reply, in which he also prayed for cross-examining certain persons but except Sri Nand Kishore, none of them were called for cross-examination. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has passed an order of punishment dated 14.10.1986, by which a recovery of Rs. 11,400/- and Rs. 10694/- was ordered to be made from the petitioner with further orders to withhold the petitioner’s integrity for the year 1978-1979 and it was also ordered that the petitioner shall not be posted in the working division for the next three years. Subsequently, vide order dated 16.10.1986, the petitioner was reinstated but the order regarding pay and allowances of the suspension period has not been passed and it has been stated that the aforesaid orders shall be passed in future.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner approached the State Public Services Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 132/F/IV/1987, inter alia on the grounds that the Additional Chief Engineer has no power to pass the suspension order for the reason that the appointing authority of the petitioner is Engineer-in-Chief; no enquiry was conducted as per Rule 55 of the CCA because while the petitioner consumed only 26 Mazphalt drums, the charge of saving 98 drums cannot be levelled; the charges are based on conjuctures and surmises; and the impugned order is non-speaking order. In the said claim petition, the petitioner preferred an application for stay of the punishment order dated 14.10.1986. The Tribunal, after issuing notices, stayed the order of punishment dated 14.10.1986 vide order dated 10.6.1987.

According to the petitioner, while working in the Indian Population Project Construction Division, the Junior Engineers and other Engineers shall be allowed rent free accommodation and as such, on the basis of verbal orders, he occupied the residence constructed for the Junior Engineer on 13.7.1984. On creation of another division of Indian Population Project Construction Division, Deoria, he was asked