VANSHIDHAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Banshidhar has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

(2.) For appreciation of merit of the prayer the following facts which stand undisputed need be noted:-- Petitioner Banshidhar is a Provincial Civil Servant in the service of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. He was posted between 1984 and October 31, 1987 as special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra. He retired from service on October 31, 1987. While he was posted as Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra he prepared a revised compensation award for two tube wells said to have stood in the acquired land of Gata Nos. 103 and 104 area 1.58 acres of Village Sarai Neem Tahsil Jaleshar, District Etah for Rupees 1,75,937.64 paisa and after obtaining approval of District Magistrate, Etah, made payments of the revised compensation amount on October 30, 1987 to Atul Pratap who received the compensation amount for Gajraj Singh son of Nahar Singh. The Government served a notice (Annexure-I) on the petitioner Banshidhar dated July 28, 1990 alleging that the said revised compensation award was manipulated by the petitioner for non-existent two tube wells and made irregular payment causing loss to the State of Uttar Pradesh and on that account the petitioner's services have not been found thoroughly satisfactory and so there is proposal to reduce the petitioner's pension to 50%. The petitioner filed his reply (Annexure-II) dated September 24, 1990. By the order dated May 18, 1991 (Annexure-III) the petitioner's reply was not found satisfactory and accordingly Government rejected the same and ordered for 50% reduction in the petitioner's pension under the provisions of Regulation 470 (b) of the Civil Service Regulations. The petitioner preferred appeal (Annexure-IV) dated October 7, 1991 which was also rejected and the petitioner was communicated the result; of appeal through the letter dated February 13, 1992 (Annexure V).

(3.) The petitioner has assailed the order dated May 18, 1991 (Annexure-III) and the communication letter dated February 13, 1992; (Annexure-V) on the ground that the orders are violative of Regulation 351 -A of the Civil Service Regulations as the petitioner did not get opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his defence and no departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner's grievance rests on the ground that the allegation of fabricated revised compensation award causing loss to the State by the petitioner, has not been substantiated in regular departmental proceedings in which the petitioner could have got an opportunity to adduce evidence in his defence.