( 1. ) The petitioner before this Court has initially preferred an original application before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and the same has been transferred to this Court after abolition of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal for adjudication.

( 2. ) The petitioner has stated in the present writ petition that he is working on the post of Assistant Grade-III in the service of the State of Madhya Pradesh and while he was posted at Gwalior a charge sheet was issued on 7.1.1998. It was alleged that the petitioner while serving as an Assistant Grade-in Diversion Branch has misplaced/lost 8 revenue cases relating to diversion and the petitioner was directed to file reply to the charge levelled against him. The petitioner did submit a reply on 19.1.1998 and it was categorically stated by the petitioner that he went on leave from 25.9.1997 till 28.9.1997 with an appropriate application and the petitioner after handing over all documents, cause list as well as keys of the Almirah proceeded on leave. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner has appointed the Superintendent Diversion as Presenting Officer and Shri R.P. Sudele, Deputy Collector as Inquiry Officer. The contention of the petitioner is that as per the charge sheet, B.K. Bhatnagar Superintendent Diversion was the only witness in the departmental enquiry initiated against him and the same Superintendent Diversion was appointed as Presenting Officer. The petitioner has further stated that the Inquiry Officer has cross-examined the petitioner and all other witnesses who were later on produced in the departmental enquiry. His contention is that the Inquiry Officer by cross-examining all the witnesses has acted as a prosecutor and therefore, the enquiry stands vititated. The petitioner has further stated that the Inquiry Officer while submitting the enquiry report has categorically stated that the petitioner while proceeding on leave has handed over the entire charge however after availing the leave he has not demanded the 8 revenue cases from the person to whom he has handed over the charge and therefore, it means that he misplaced/lost 8 revenue cases. The petitioner has further stated that based upon the enquiry report a punishment order dated 23/3/1999 was passed by which a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with comulative effect has been inflicted upon him. The petitioner has, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 24/2/2000. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of punishment as well as the order passed by the appellate authority.

( 3. ) Areply has been filed on behalf of the respondent State and the stand of the respondent State is that the petitioner was the custodian of the revenue cases as reflected in the charge-sheet and it was the duty of the petitioner to verify the files after reporting back on duty. The respondents have also stated before this Court that no procedural irregularity of any kind has taken place in the matter while inflicting the order of punishment dated 23rd March 1999 and the same has been passed based upon the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, The respondents have also stated that the appellate authority with due application of mind has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and therefore, as no procedural irregularity has been committed in the matter of Departmental Enquiry nor it is violative of the principle of natural justice and fair-play, the question of interference with the punishment order as well as the order passed by the appellate authority does not arise. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

( 4. ) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

( 5. ) In the present case, the petitioner is an employee serving on the post of Assistant Grade-Ill was charge-sheeted vide charge