NANHE LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajiv Mishra, counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and counsel appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner has sought relief in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6.11.2008 passed by respondent No. 1 contained in Annexure-12 of the writ petition whereby a sum of Rs. 19,303/- is sought to be recovered from the post retiral dues of the petitioner and order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the respondent No. 7 to the extent it recommends for recovery of the amount in question from the post retiral benefits of the petitioner (contained in Annexure-11 of the writ petition). Further a writ of mandamus is sought for commanding the respondents to pay the entire post retiral benefits towards gratuity, commutation, leave encashment, R.D. amount, T.A. etc. to the extent of Rs. 12,50,000/- and to pay him full pension as well as arrears of pension alongwith 18% interest thereon.

(3.) The brief facts relevant to the questions in controversy involved in the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department (P.W.D.) in the year 1973 and has been retired from service from the post of Executive Engineer on 31.7.2004. While he was in service a departmental inquiry was instituted against him by means of Government order dated 16.1.2004 appointing Chief Engineer P.W.D. Varanasi Region, Varanasi as Inquiry Officer in respect of construction of alleged sub standard road by him. However, the petitioner has apprised the authorities that he did not had any role to play in carrying out the work of disputed road from ballasting upto final coating (painting) of the top level (crust), and the said road was constructed by his successor namely Sudhir Kumar Sinha after he had handed over entire charge to him on 31.7.1999. Considering his aforesaid explanation and keeping in view the undisputed facts borne out from records, the Executive Engineer in his communication dated 18.6.2004 made to the Superintending Engineer clearly stated that the work having been undertaken during the period of period of Sudhir Kumar Sinha, and no charge against the petitioner seems to be made out hence he recommended for action against Sri Sinha. A copy of the letter dated 18.6.2004 written by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer is on record as Annexure-2 of the writ petition.