JUDGMENT :

(Prakash Padia, J.)

1. The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.09.2000 passed by the respondent No.3/District Magistrate Ballia as well as order dated 30.04.2003 passed by respondent No.2/Commissioner, Azamgarh Region Azamgarh, which was communicated to the petitioner on 04.06.2003.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner while posted at the office of District Supply Officer Ballia, was suspended by the respondent No.3/ District Magistrate Ballia vide its order dated 13.01.2000 and District Supply Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer. District Supply Officer/Enquiry Officer/respondent No.5 served charge-sheet upon the petitioner on 29.04.2000 on the basis of certain paper which were never provided to the petitioner with a direction to submit reply. The petitioner submitted his reply/explanation vide letter dated 04.05.2000 denying all the charges made in the charge-sheet.

3. After submission of the reply, the petitioner was anticipating that a regular enquiry be conducted in the matter and he shall also be afforded an opportunity to cross examine the witness of prosecution and test the credibility of evidence of prosecution and also be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in his defence. But without conducting regular enquiry and without supplying documents and papers on the basis of which the petitioner was suspended, the respondent No.3 ex-parte took the allegations proved without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing and passed the order of suspension stating that the petitioner has not given any evidence along with the reply. After receipt of notice dated 11.09.2000 issued by respondent No.3 for showing cause on proposed penalty, the petitioner showed the cause vide its letter/reply dated 13.09.2000 stating therein that whatever fault have alleged to have been levelled on the petitioner were circumstantial and were caused by collectively and alleged charges levelled against the petitioner has not been done by him and the mistake committed due to over burden of work but the respondent No.3 without considering the same and without providing any opportunity of hearing, without supplying the documents and papers and relying only upon the report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent No.3 passed the order an ex-parte manner. Against the order dated 22.09.2000 passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner preferred the appeal before respondent No.2/Commissioner, Azamgarh Division Azamgarh on 02.11.2000 and the respondent No.2 rejected the appeal the appeal has no force.

4. The main ground of challenge the aforesaid orders is that the petitioner was suspended by the disciplinary authority under contemplation of disciplinary proceeding while invoking provisions contained under Rule 7 of Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 for imposing major penalty but while proceeding was under progress, the petitioner has been awarded minor punishment contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sohan Lal Vs. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and another; 2013 (6) ADJ 250 (DB) as well as the law laid down by Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashtebhuja Mishra and another; 2017(9) ADJ 373 (DB) and Kamla Charan Misra Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2008 Law Suit (All) 1016 (DB).

5. Refuting the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel rely upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.H.B.V.N.L. Vidyut Nagar, Hisar and others Vs. Yashvir Singh Gulia; 2013 (SC) 568 has submitted that if the procedure for imposing major penalty has been started and in the meantime, if the authority comes to the conclusion that it is the case of imposing minor penalty and the minor penalty is awarded, the order cannot be faulted.

6. In response to the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in case of D.H.B.V.N.L. (supra) there is a provisio