M.M. SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Kshemendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Z.Zilani, learned Additional Advocate General, for the opposite parties.

(2.) Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the validity and correctness of the order dated 30.3.2001 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow (opposite party No.1) contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, whereby petitioner was found guilty for misappropriation of funds and a direction has been issued to recover a sum of Rs.50,82,266/- from the gratuity and pension of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 9 (1) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961.

(3.) Shorn off unnecessary details the facts of the case are as under :