The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of principles of natural justice, specifically in the context of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and the non-speaking and non-reasoned enquiry report.

This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No.19843/2014 (N.K. Jain Vs. State of M.P. & others) and W.P. No.18823/2014 (K.R. Ahirwar Vs. State of M.P. & others) as all these writ petitions are arising out of the same orders.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 10/11/2014 (Annexure-P/1) and 05/04/2014 (Annexure-P/2) passed by respondents No.1 and 3 respectively.

3. The petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Engineer and posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department, Sidhi. The petitioner is a graduate engineer and was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 13/03/2006 w.e.f. 14/07/2003. While the petitioner was posted as Sub Divisional Engineer, Bansagar Distributary Sub Division No.3, Semariya, Distt. Rewa under Bansagar Project from October, 2008 to June, 2012. In the said project even in surrounding and other project, Cantilever sign boards were put up indicating various parameters pertaining to canals which were part of these projects. The petitioner also requested for three canals involving twenty one sign boards. The actual procurement was to be done by the superior such as sanction for the item and the procedure acquiring these items. The officers at the petitioner's level do not have much role to play. The supervisor in their wisdom purchased these items from the authorised venders on the rate contract basis of the Laghu Udyog Nigam. As per the advice of superior, the items were utilized throughout the project. Thereafter a complaint was made to the department as well as to the Lokayukt Sangathan alleging irregularities in the matter of purchase of sign boards. The Lokayukt organization has registered a complaint against the petitioner and after enquiry the Lokayukt Organization vide communication dated 08/04/2013 recorded its due satisfaction and closed the case as nothing adverse has been found against the petitioner. However, on the basis of complaint made to the department, a show cause notice dated 10/10/2012 was issued by the Engineer-in-Chief to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the said show cause notice on 14/02/2012, however, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have issued charge sheet dated 09/05/2012 to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the said charge sheet on 17/07/2012. Thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed, however, the documents were not supplied to the petitioner in spite of his demand vide application dated 22/06/2012. None of these materials which were sought to be used against the petitioner was provided and made available to him.

4. During the course of enquiry, statement of one Ram Gopal Mishra, Superintendent in the Office of Superintending Engineer, Bansagar Canal Circle has been recorded who also did not prove any of the documents nor any such material was placed in the regular departmental enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer supplied copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner along with covering letter dated 05/04/2014. The petitioner submitted his representation against the enquiry officer's report on 05/05/2014. As the Public Service Commission (PSC) is to be necessarily consulted and its advice sought, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the PSC on 04/08/2014. Thereafter the respondents have passed the order dated 10/11/2014 whereby the petitioner has been subjected to the penalty of reduction to the lower post of Sub Engineer. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present case, the consultation/concurrence of the Public Service Commission in the matter of passing of major penalty in the form of its advice was never made available to the petitioner which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that there is a violation of Rule 14(18) of the Civil