SRI NATH UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Pradhan, J. Can the Disciplinary Authority while imposing major punishment, act on material/evidence which is neither supplied nor disclosed to the delinquent, is the only question of substance which arises for consideration in these writ petitions which I propose to dispose of by a common judgment since they raise the same questions.

(2.) DEFALCATION and irregular payment of pension as also the arrears of pension to the tune of Rs. 3,50,008. 00 came to be detected in Sub-Treasury, Bikapur, district Faizabad by the Senior Officer, Faizabad during his surprise inspection made on 14-1-1992. He submitted his report thereof to the District Magistrate, Faizabad on 15-1-192 The latter got it exa mined by A. D. M. (Finance and Revenue), who submitted his report to the District Magistrate on 19-1-1992. Thereupon the District Magistrate placed all the three petitioners under suspension vide his order dated 20-1-1992. The petitioners were Assistant Accountants in the Sub-Treasury, Bikapur during the relevant period (1989-91 ). However, the petitioner, Ram Pal Mishra had taken over charge at Bikapur Sub-Treasury on 31-7-1991. A charge- sheet, containing two charges was served on each petitioner on 30-4-1992. The petitioners submitted their written-statements of reply on 30-5-1992 and repudiated the charges.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the other side and perused the record as also the original record of inquiry which was specifically summoned by the Court for its perusal to ascertain if the statements of the pensioners were recorded behind the back of the petitioners and whether any opportunity to cross-examine such pensioners was afforded to the petitioners.