of, gross negligence and dereliction of duty if not more Nothing illegal arbitrary or without jurisdiction, in the circumstances can be attributed to the penalty order dated 07.12.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority as upheld in review. It was further submitted that the function of the allotment advisory committee is administrative in nature and not quasi-judicial as argued by the counsel for the petitioner. The allotment advisory committee is not seized of a lis, obliged to act judicially or hear the applicants. It is only a fact finding committee, administrative in nature. The petitioner thus had no protection, as a quasi judicial authority ordinarily has against disciplinary proceedings. It was further submitted that the mere fact that the allotment made to ineligible applicants were subsequently cancelled in appeals under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1970 is of no relevance to the issue of the petitioner’s misconduct found in the facts stated above. Mr. Avasthi finally submitted that in the allotment advisory committee constituted under the Rule 13 of the Rules of 1970 only the S.D.O. and the Tehsildar are Government employee, others being elected representatives or nominees of the State Government over which the State Government has no disciplinary control under the Rules of 1958. Aside of the petitioner, then the Tehsildar, the S.D.O. one Ram Avtar Meena was the other member of the allotment advisory committee and punished as was the petitioner. He was also subjected to a joint inquiry along with the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 for his own negligence and dereliction of duty
