GOPI CHAND BISHNOI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 30th September, 2000 passed by respondent No. 1 imposing punishment of deduction of pension by 20% in exercise of power under Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulation (hereinafter referred to as CSR) the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order and has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the entire pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 18%.

(2.) THE facts in brief, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Naib- Tahsildar and promoted to the post of Tahsildar and Deputy Collector wherefrom he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-6-1997. Just a few months earlier to the date of retirement the petitioner received a charge-sheet dated 20th December, 1996 which contained four charges with respect to alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner while working as Land Acquisition Officer between 1994-95. THE Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut was appointed Enquiry Officer under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1930 as applicable in U. P. (hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules, 1930 ). THE petitioner vide letter dated 24th January, 1997 requested that he may be supplied the documents relied in support of charges so that he may submit his reply. Reminders also sent on 18th February, 1997 and 28th June, 1999. THE petitioner was informed that documents pertaining to charges No. 2, 3 and 4 are lying in the Vigilance Department and hence could not be made available for inspection but some documents pertaining to charge No. 1 were made available which were inspected by him. THEreafter he submitted reply on 16th October, 1998 with respect to charge No. 1 only. It appears that documents pertaining to charges No. 2, 3 and 4 were not made available to the Enquiry Officer as well. THE Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut i. e. the Enquiry Officer after receiving petitioner's reply dated 16th October, 1998 submitted his report dated 2nd August, 1999 confining his findings to charge No. 1 only and held that charge No. 1 was established against the petitioner. Copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner alongwith show-cause notice dated 17th August, 1999 where against he submitted reply dated 8th October, 1999. Respondent No. 1 ultimately passed impugned order of punishment dated 30th September, 2000 imposing punishment of deduction of pension by 20% since the petitioner in the meantime had attained the age of superannuation and therefore various other punishments as provided under Rule 49 of CCA Rules, 1930 could not have been imposed.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the State Government also produced original record pertaining to enquiry which has been conducted against the petitioner and the Court has also perused the same.