MAQSOOD ALAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has rendered 38 years of service at U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, however, at the verge of his retirement he was dismissed from service and his departmental appeal was also dismissed.

(2.) As per averments made in this writ petition, on alleged storage loss due to moisture gain and moisture loss recovery orders were also passed in as many as 14 departmental inquiries which come to about Rs.33.00 lacs, i.e., an amount equivalent to post retiral dues of petitioner.

(3.) Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner has argued at length and refers pleadings and various documents that there was no storage loss and artificial calculation was made by respondents to create the storage loss despite in the accounts loss was already waived off and, therefore, not reflected in balance sheets of relevant years. During inquiry petitioner sought informations however, it was never provided, therefore, he was not able to submit detailed reply and orders were passed ex parte at his back. He has referred a chart that as many as 70 employees have suffered similar nature of disciplinary proceedings and similar fate.