Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard Shri Ashok Khare learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, for the petitioner and Smt. Subhash Rathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents and also perused the record.

2. In pursuance to our order dated 2.5.2014, Smt.Subhash Rathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced before us the relevant records pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner. The documents provided by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel are taken on record.

3. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.3.2014 passed by the State Government imposing a punishment of reduction to the minimum/initial pay-scale of Executive Engineer which is a major punishment under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short Rules of 1999).

4. On 12.7.2011, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in respect of certain irregularities committed by him while posted as an Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department at Hathras and the Chief Engineer (Maintenance & Evaluation), Irrigation Department was appointed as Enquiry Officer. A charge-sheet dated 18.7.2011 was issued to the petitioner containing three charges; the first charge was to the effect that the petitioner had got certain construction work done under the NABARD Project to the tune of Rs. 92,38,749/- without inviting tenders as a result of which the department was deprived of the benefit of competitive rates which would have been available if the tender process would have been adopted. Violation of paragraph 369 of the Financial Handbook Part VI and paragraph 7 of the IMO as also Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1966 was alleged. Charge No. 2 related to the work being got done through his subordinates by dividing the same into small lots without taking sanction of the competent authority as per letter of the Chief Engineer dated 21.7.2000. The implication was that by dividing the work into small lots, the requirement of sanction of the competent authority having pecuniary jurisdiction, was sought to be avoided. The third charge was to the effect that the Assistant Engineer under his administrative control was allowed to divide the work exceeding Rs. 2 lac financial limit into small lots and distributing the same to the same contractor on the same date by executing an agreement in his favour, thereby violating the provisions of the Financial Handbook. The payment of the said work was done by the petitioner. The petitioner was charged with indifference towards his duties and not exercising effective control over his subordinates.

5. A bare perusal of the order dated 12.7.2011 contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition makes it amply clear that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were for imposition of a major punishment, as per rule 7 of the Rules, 1999. The said fact is also fortified from the issuance of the charge-sheet dated 18.7.2011. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet vide letter dated 28.7.2011 denying the charges levelled against him. After submission of the charge-sheet, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, no date, time and place of enquiry was fixed by the Enquiry Officer nor the same was intimated to him. No enquiry, including oral enquiry, was held by the Enquiry Officer. In this regard specific averments have been made in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 24, 25 and 26 of the writ petition. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 17.10.2011 before the State Government for further action. Thereafter, the State Government issued a show-cause notice dated 11.9.2012 to the petitioner alongwith a copy of the enquiry report. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply on 22.10.2012 and on 5.3.2014, the impugned order imposing major punishment was passed by the State Government based upon the enqui