BRIJENDRA NATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) Shorn of the details, facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed as a teacher and by passage of time, he was granted a number of promotions. At the relevant time, he was posted as District Basic Education Officer, Gonda and was also holding charge of Zila Anupcharik Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda. After preliminary enquiry by the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. Allahabad, a charge sheet dated 28.2.1994 was served upon him containing 19 charges pertaining to financial irregularities said to be committed by him. The Joint Director of Education (Basic) was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 11.2.1994 for conducting enquiry. Before submitting his report, the Enquiry Officer is said to have also afforded opportunity to the petitioner. After considering reply of the petitioner dated 27.6.1994 and other materials on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 28.8.1994 to the disciplinary authority, copy of which was also served upon the petitioner on 25.11.1994. The relevant extract of conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 28.8.1994 read thus:-

(3.) The disciplinary authority vide its order dated 22.5.1999 found charge nos. 1 to 7, 9, 11 to 17 as fully proved and charge nos. 8,10,18, and 19 as partly proved. Since the petitioner had in the meantime retired on 31st January 1997 on attaining the age of superannuation, hence decision to forfeit his gratuity and 50% of his pension was sent to U.P. Public Service Commission. The State Government thereafter approved the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer and recommended thus vide its order dated 8.9.1994.