D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and perused record.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Junior Plant Protection Assistant in the Department of Agriculture, U.P. on 13.1.1954. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Deputy Director Plant Protection and retired from service on 30.11.1990. According to petitioner's counsel, after retirement, petitioner moved an application for payment of post retiral dues. According to petitioner's counsel, the Chief Accountant Officer, Directorate, Agriculture Department is competent authority to release pension and gratuity in accordance with the Government order contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition but the pension and gratuity of the petitioner was not released hence he submitted representation to the Director, Agriculture U.P. on 22.2.1991 contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition followed by another representation dated 30.5.1991, contained in Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. Submission of the petitioner's counsel is that instead of adjudicating the controversy with regard to payment of post retiral dues, chargesheet dated 4.7.1991 was served on the petitioner along with covering letter a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. After receipt of chargesheet the petitioner submitted letter dated 12.7.1991 to the inquiry officer in which the petitioner inter alia pleaded that after retirement, no proceeding can be held since the charges are 5 years old. The petitioner relied upon the Regulation 351A of U.P. Civil Service Regulations (in short the Regulations). Representation submitted by the petitioner was followed by another representation dated 24.9.1991 contained in Annexure No.6 to the writ petition. Instead of adjudicating the controversy in the light of Regulation 351A of the Regulations, by a letter dated 23.9.1991 contained in Annexure No.7 to the writ petition, the petitioner was informed with regard to change of inquiry officer. However, by subsequent representation dated 29.10.1991 followed by another representation dated 5.9.1992 contained in Annexurer No.9 and 10 to the writ petition, the petitioner again took stand that no inquiry can be proceeded against the petitioner.
(3.) IT appears that since the petitioner failed to receive any response from the respondents, he approached this Court under writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the chargesheet dated 4.7.1991 contained in Annexure No.4 to the writ petition.;