Hon’ble Ashok Pal Singh, J.—Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sangeeta Chandra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 4.1.2006 passed by the State Government imposing punishment of reduction of his 25% pension permanently during the departmental proceedings taken up against him.

3. The petitioner was posted as an Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) Tubewell Division, Meerut (West) having under his command area as many as 217 tubewells of district-Baghpat. The maintenance and running of the said tubewells was being done under his administrative authority. The Chief Engineer, Tubewell (West), Meerut vide his order dated 17.9.2001 directed the areawise task of 100% verification of the aforesaid 217 tubewells to four of his Executive Engineers and called upon them to report as to whether the tubewells so verified by them were found in running state or not and in case, they were not found in running state, the reasons therefor.

4. Subsequently, on the basis of the verification report received from the aforesaid Executive Engineers, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for committing certain irregularities in respect of the above tubewells. A charge-sheet dated 28.10.2002 was issued to the petitioner containing as many as four charges. The documentary evidence which was being relied upon in support of the charges in essence contained the verification report of the tubewells submitted by the four Executive Engineers to the Chief Engineer and the order of Chief Engineer thereon. The request of the petitioner for the supply of the copies of said documentary evidence was turned down on the premise of said documentary evidence being voluminous. However, the petitioner was allowed to inspect the record. It appears that after making the inspection, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him.

5. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer without holding any oral enquiry, merely on the basis of the reply given by the petitioner and the aforesaid documentary evidence arrived at the conclusion of the charges to have been proved against the petitioner and submitted his enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the State Government for further action. The State Government, in turn, issued a show-cause notice dated 12.9.2003 to the petitioner furnishing alongwith it to him a copy of the enquiry report. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 28.12.2004. The petitioner thereafter attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2004. According to the respondents after obtaining necessary permission under 351-A of CSR impugned order imposing the aforesaid punishment was passed by the State Government.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend his case was not provided to the petitioner in as much as no date, time or place was fixed by the Enquiry Officer to proceed with the enquiry after submission of his reply to the charge-sheet nor the same was ever intimated to him. No enquiry including any oral enquiry was also held by the Enquiry Officer. Neither any oral evidence of any witness was recorded nor any opportunity for making any cross-examination with any such witness was provided to him. In fact, no list of witness at all was provided by the department to the Enquiry Officer proposing any witness to be examined in order to prove the documentary evidence. The conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer were merely on the basis of the charges levelled and the explanation provided by the petitioner.

7. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that burden of proving the charges was on the department, but, the Enquiry Officer shifted the burden of proving the negative upon the petitioner. The enquiry, thus, conducted by the Enquiry Officer, was no enqu