SATYAVEER SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(3.) As per the prosecution case, the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment conducted an open inquiry against the applicant on 04.01.2008 pursuant to the enquiry the final report dated 22.03.2016 was presented to the Government and allegedly it was found that applicant while being a Government servant during the check period i.e. from March, 1986 to December, 2007 had illegitimate income of Rs.15,19,778/- from his known and legal sources. However, during enquiry, it was found that during the said period the applicant had an expenditure of Rs.42,34,785/- it is thus alleged that applicant spent Rs.27,15,007/- more than his known sources of income and he has failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the same.