Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.5.1995, whereby he has been removed from service on the charges of misconduct. The order, consequently, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. Petitioner was posted as a registration clerk in the office of Deputy Registrar, Stamp and Registration, Deoria. Certain unanimous complaints were received against him. It seems that petitioner was transferred to Mirzapur from Deoria on 7.1.1993 and he was also relieved on 30.1.1993, but he failed to join at the transferred place. An order of suspension, consequently, came to be passed against him and a charge-sheet dated 28.4.1993 was issued, levelling following charges :

“(1) Petitioner had purchased land in the name of his wife in 1959, 1972 and 1973 without informing and obtaining prior permission of the competent authority and had failed to submit reply to the letter dated 3.12.1992, whereby his explanation had been called rendering him guilty of violating U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956.

(2) Petitioner had purchased a car in 1987 in the name of his wife without intimation and permission of the appointment authority, violating the Rules of 1956.

(3) Petitioner had been transferred under orders of Inspector General (Registrar) on administrative ground from Deoria to Mirzapur on 7.1.1993, and the order of transfer was not complied with, instead an application for grant of medical leave w.e.f. 6.3.1992 to 6.3.1993 was moved without enclosing any medical certificate, and therefore, petitioner had failed to carry out directions issued by the competent authority.”

3. Petitioner denied the charges levelled vide his reply dated 30.6.1993 and various factual averments were made in his defence. Assistant Inspector General (Registration) was appointed as an enquiry officer, who held the enquiry and submitted his report. As per enquiry report following findings were returned :

“(i) In respect of charge No. (1)(a), which related to purchase of land in the year 1959, it was observed that no permission was required as petitioner was not in service at that time.

(ii) In respect of charge No. 1(b), which related to purchase of land in the name of his wife in the year 1972 and 1973, enquiry officer found situation to be not clear, inasmuch as petitioner is stated to have sent two letters seeking permission to purchase land, but it is not clear as to whether any permission was granted or not.

(iii) In respect charge No. 1(c), insofar as it referred to non submission of explanation pursuant to letter dated 3.12.1992, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled.

(iv) In respect of charge No. 2 regarding purchase of car in the name of petitioner’s wife, the enquiry officer found that petitioner had apparently sent information about purchase of car, but it is not clear as to whether any permission was granted or not.

(v) In respect of charge No. 3, the enquiry officer found that in view of the documents produced, the charge was not proved as the petitioner had remained on leave.

4. A show-cause notice thereafter was served upon the petitioner alongwith enquiry report on 1.6.1994, granting him an opportunity to submit his reply, as to why a major punishment be not imposed upon him, but the same was not replied.

5. The disciplinary authority, in respect of allegation relating to purchase of land in the name of petitioner’s wife in the year 1959, proceeded to hold that there was no specific charge of obtaining permission and the only requirement was of disclosure of such property at the time of entry into service on 2.8.1961. The disciplinary authority found that there was no charge levelled about non disclosure of this property, and as such, the charge levelled was held to be not proved. So far as the charge of purchase of land in the name of his wife in 1972 is concerned, it was held that a sale-deed had been executed on 2.7.1972 and was registered in the office of De