Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Jytoinjay Verma, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) FACTS of the present case are to the effect that petitioner was initially appointed as a constable of the Provincial Armed Constabulary in IIIrd Batallion P.A.C. at Lucknow on 28.03.2007, thereafter, he was served in IInd Batallian P.A.C. at Muradabad, XIV Batallion P.A.C. at Kanpur, XV Batallion P.A.C. at Agra and lastly when the petitioner was posted as constable in Armed Police District -Faizabad on 5.7.1989, he was in custody of 53 cartridges alongwith another constable Amar Nath Saroj. As per pleadings in the present case, Shri Amar Nath Saroj (constable) informed the petitioner that he alongwith the petitioner has to depart from Guard Duty on 14.9.89 to the police line in view of the petitioner proceeded to police line and he will be reached in the night at village Tikari.
(3.) IN view of the abovesaid fact, the petitioner proceeded to record his attendance in General Diary and submit his joining at police line. Accordingly, the petitioner proceeded to police line but in the night he will be reached in village Tikari and while he was sleeping in the night, the rifle and the cartridges were stolen accordingly the F.I.R. Was lodged under Section 156/89 read with Section 457/380 I.P.C. (Annexure No. 4). In the said incidence, a charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner on 2.8.1989 (Annexure No. 5) under Section 7 of the Police Act, after receiving the same he submitted his reply on 10.8.1989 (Annexure No. 6) thereafter one Shri M.L. Gautam D.S.P., Faizabad was appointed as enquiry officer who had conducted the enquiry in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on the basis of materials on record submitted the enquiry report dated 30.9.1989 (Annexure No. 7). The disciplinary authority/S.S.P. Faizabad issued a show cause notice dated 12.10.1989 to the petitioner (Annexure No. 8) by which the petitioner was asked to submit his reply that why he should not be removed from his service, after receiving the same petitioner submitted his reply on 28.10.1989 (Annexure No. 9) thereafter the disciplinary authority/punishing authority after going through the materials on record as well as reply submitted by the petitioner passed the impugned order dated 27.1.1990 hence the present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order as well as the suspension order, charge sheet and show cause notice as contained in annexure nos.2,3,5 and 8 respectively.;