As a result of unauthorized changes, the length of canal was increased by 63 metres.
Apart from the above, other irregularities were also numbericed.
All companysequential benefits were also allowed.
It was also held that numberbasis for arriving at the figure of the amount sought to be recovered was given.
The High Court has particularly made a mention about the letters dated 16.11.1997 and 28.7.1988 as mentioned in Annexure 26 A of Writ Petition which are said to have been obtained after 8.6.1997, the date on which the Inquiry Officer had asked the respondent to appear before him.
The writ petition was allowed by order dated 15.12.1999 setting aside the order of punishment and directing that the respondent would be companysidered for promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted.
Since all the documents as required by the respondent are said to have number been made available to him, he had to file a reply ultimately on 8.4.1987 under protest.
It appears that a preliminary inquiry was made and thereafter a charge sheet was served upon the respondent on 6.4.1984 for regular departmental proceedings.
Hence, this appeal by Special Leave.
During the period 16.5.1979 to 29.3.1981, the respondent had been looking after the execution of the work of the companystruction of Upper Rajghat Canal, Matalila and in that companynection it was found that there was substantial difference in companystruction of ground levels and there was change in approved L Section also.
The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 28.7.1993 on companysideration whereof and after going through the other formalities, order of punishment was passed on 21.4.1995 as indicated earlier.
The said order was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition filed at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
The State Government felt aggrieved by the above order passed by the High Court in the writ petition.
After holding disciplinary proceedings against the respondent Ramesh Chandra Mangalik, an order of punishment was passed withholding his four increments of salary permanently and for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,822/ .
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the order of punishment was bad in law since principles of natural justice have been violated in holding inquiry due to number supply of companyies of all the necessary and relevant documents and for number affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the delinquent.
According to the respondent, he had himself detected the changes and other irregularities in the work relating to companystruction of Upper Rajghat Canal but he got the whole thing companyrected without allowing any loss to occur to the Government.
The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on 19.2.1963, in the Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. He was later on posted as Assistant Engineer In charge on 8.5.1979 against the vacant post of Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Construction Division, Matatila.
It has been pointed out that as a companysequence of some orders passed in the litigation pending in this Court, relating to promotions to the post of Executive Engineer, the Assistant Engineers were number being promoted as Executive Engineers but were posted as Assistant Engineers In charge The Junior Engineers and the Assistant Engineers working in any project had been working under the overall supervision of the Assistant Engineer In charge.
The respondent sought time for filing the explanation to the charge sheet and demanded companyies of certain documents.
Brijesh Kumar, J. Leave granted.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
