SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Surendra Pratap Singh, according to the averments made in the writ petition, was serving in the department of Rural Development, State of U.P. on being appointed as Assistant Development Officer (Co -operative) on 8.4.1957 after undergoing through regular selection process conducted by U.P. Public Service Commission; he was appointed as Block Development Officer; he discharged his duties efficiently and his service career has been unblemished; after completing continuous service of 32 years he retired on 31.7.1989. Prior to retirement he Was holding the post of Additional District Development Officer, Gonda. His papers for post -retiral benefits, pension, etc. were delayed, he wrote several letters/representations to the concerned authorities (Para No. 8 and 9 of the writ petition) and being constrained due to inaction on the part of the respondents, he filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 20.8.1990 (Annexure -6 to the writ petition) to the extent and by means of which he has been awarded punishment on two scores. A counter affidavit has been filed only on behalf of respondent No. 3. In para 13 of the writ petition it is categorically mentioned that impugned order has been passed and punishment inflicted without giving show cause notice for submitting his reply in defence or affording an opportunity of hearing in the matter to the petitioner.

(2.) THE counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 is cryptic and as vague as it can be. Para 8 of the said counter affidavit reads; - -

(3.) IN order to enable the respondents to defend themselves, this Court vide order dated 21.7.1998 directed the standing counsel (representing the respondents) to produce the record of the case. On 12.8.1998, a stop order, granting one month and no more time, was passed by the Court on 4.12.2000, while passing order on the amendment application of the petitioner, this court reiterated its earlier command in pursuance to the aforesaid order and directed the standing counsel to produce the record. The learned Standing Counsel informs that necessary communication, including information by fax, was sent to the concerned respondent but he has received no instructions and consequently unable to produce the record taking into account the past history, we are not inclined to perpetuate the delay and defer the hearing of the case on this score.