Disciplined government servants must be provided a fair opportunity to defend against allegations of misconduct before adverse entries can be made in their records, particularly affecting their integrity.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. The petitioner, a Senior Assistant with the Department of Irrigation, Water Works Division, Jhansi, has challenged a multitude of orders passed against him, numbering a total of eleven, by the Chief Engineer (Nal Koop Madhya), Department of Irrigation, Lucknow, U.P. and the Superintending Engineer, Water Works Division, Jhansi. Initially, when the petition was instituted, ten orders passed by the two respondents above named, dated 12.10.2018, 16.03.2019, 01.04.2019, 12.06.2019, 13.06.2019, 19.07.2019, 31.07.2020, 05.09.2020, 01.10.2021 and 18.03.2021, were impugned. Later on, by amendment, the petitioner added to the cart of the orders impugned, the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Chief Engineer (Nal Koop Madhya), Department of Irrigation, Lucknow, U.P.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 20.02.2009 with the Department of Irrigation, Water Works Division, Jhansi. He was promoted to the post of a Senior Assistant on 13.06.2016. The petitioner asserts that he is working to the satisfaction of the Department and its various officers. The petitioner asserts that the various orders passed against him are the result of mala fides and personal grudge harboured against him by Ram Pratap Yadav, Superintending Engineer, Water Works Division, Jhansi. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that he has been targeted by the Superintending Engineer aforesaid to gratify his ego. It is for this reason that Ram Pratap Yadav has been impleaded eo nomine as respondent No.5.

3. The petitioner says that while posted as a Senior Engineer with the Water Works Division, Jhansi, he was not allotted work earmarked for that position. Accordingly, the petitioner requested the Superintending Engineer aforesaid that he may be allotted work meant for the post that he occupies. The aforesaid request was refused by the Superintending Engineer vide orders dated 11.06.2018, 12.06.2018 and 13.06.2018. The Superintending Engineer passed further orders dated 20.06.2018 and 11.10.2018, saying that the petitioner had not signed the attendance register on 09.10.2018 and 10.10.2018, and, on that account, required the petitioner by the orders last mentioned to submit his explanation. On the day following the order dated 11.10.2018, seeking the petitioner's explanation, the Superintending Engineer passed the first of the orders impugned dated 12.10.2018, awarding an adverse entry to the petitioner as a measure of penalty, without considering the petitioner's reply.

4. It is next pleaded that the Superintending Engineer, yet again, maliciously passed an order dated 15.11.2018, calling for the petitioner's explanation regarding his absence from duty on 15.11.2018. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 16.11.2018, in response whereto a memo dated 03.12.2018 was issued by the Superintending Engineer, addressed to the petitioner, saying that the language, in which the petitioner's reply was couched, was objectionable, unparliamentary and based on falsehood. It was remarked that his integrity appeared doubtful. The petitioner was warned to be careful in future. This order is not under challenge.

5. The petitioner next says that the Superintending Engineer bears personal grudge against him and motivated by that, in the most arbitrary fashion, he issued show cause notices dated 12.02.2019, 06.03.2019 and 15.03.2019 to the petitione