( 1. ) THESE are the two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1-6-2002 (Annexure P-l) by which his services have been terminated. He has claimed reinstatement and arrears of salary.

( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that petitioner M. C. Mittal was working as Training Officer in Industrial Training Institute, Koni, Bilaspur. He was transferred from that place to Balaghat by order dated 14-5-1994. He was relieved on 31-7-1995. He did not join his duties at Balaghat for 2 years, nine months and seven days. He joined at Balaghat on 8-5-1998. A departmental enquiry on two charges was initiated against the petitioner on 6-5-1999. A copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure R-l. A detailed imputation of misconduct along with a list of documents and a list of witnesses was supplied to him. The petitioner submitted his reply on 26-5-1999. A copy of that reply is Annexure R-2. An enquiry officer was appointed to hold the departmental enquiry. During the pendency of this enquiry the petitioner was served with an additional charge-sheet on 26-7-2000 containing two more charges. The petitioner submitted reply to that charge-sheet also. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 28-9-2001. He found that all the four charges were proved. A copy of the report is Annexure A-3. The petitioner was supplied a copy of this enquiry report. He submitted his reply (Annexure A-4 ). The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report and the representation of the petitioner came to the conclusion that all the four charges were duly proved. He passed a speaking order terminating the services of the petitioner. The period from 31-7-1995 to 8-5-1998 and from 22-6-2001 has been treated as "dies-non".

( 3. ) THE petitioners case is that the charge-sheet (Annexure R-l) was issued by the Joint Director of the Directorate of Employment and Training whereas the petitioners appointing authority is Director and therefore the departmental enquiry is vitiated. The show-cause notice with which the copy of the enquiry report was sent did not specify the penalty and therefore it is not in accordance with law. It is submitted that the charges have not been proved. According to the petitioner the relieving letter was not served upon him; he was not paid T. A. and D. A. and was sick and therefore he could not join at Balaghat. It is stated by him that the Director by his letter dated 23-4-1998 (Annexure P-2) treated his absence as "duty period" and he was asked to join at Balaghat within 15 days and as he joined on 8-5-1998 it can not be said that he has committed any misconduct. He was not paid the arrears of his salary at Balaghat and he was transferred to Vijayraghogarh. It is pleaded that once the Director passed the order dated 23-4-1998 giving an opportunity to the petitioner to join his duties within 15 days, the succeeding Director could not terminate his services on that count. The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs. 4,58,000/- as arrears of his salary with interest.

( 4. ) THE respondentss case is that the charge-sheet could be legally issued by the Joint Director. The disciplinary action has been taken by the Director and the termination order has also been passed by him and therefore there is no legal infirmity. It is also stated that the relieving letter was served upon the petitioner and the advance for T. A. and D. A. was also drawn but the petitioner did not receive it and remained absent for more than two and a half years and thus he committed gross misconduct by disobedience and remaining absent from duty for a long period. It is denied that the Director by the letter dated 23-4-1998 treated the absence of the petitioner as duty period. According to the respondents the departmental enquiry was held in conformity with the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the penalty which has been imposed upon the petitioner is not disproportionate, the petit