Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Cashier in the Judgeship of Farrukhabad in July, 1987. On 3.2.1988, the then Additional District Judge/Accounts Officer provided two peons to the petitioner and entrusted him to bring cash of Rs. 48,319.20 p. from the Bank. It is submitted by the petitioner that apart from the above two peons, namely, Ravish Chandra and Mumtaz Hasan, deputed by the Additional District Judge, he also took his personal peon Satish Chandra Dixit to the Bank. After encashment of the bill, the petitioner gave Rs. 40,000 to his peon for safe keeping and kept Rs. 8,319.20 P. with him. When the petitioner returned to Nazarat, it was found that Rs. 30,000 were missing from the leather bag, which was kept by him in the bag of Satish Chandra Dixit. The petitioner thereupon informed the District Judge and lodged an F.I.R. All the three peons were suspended. The petitioner was also suspended on the charge of gross negligence and a charge-sheet was served on him charging him for disobedience of bank circulars/orders issued for the safety of the money as he had not taken police aid with him.
(3.) THE petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that : (a) Satish Chandra Dixit, Peon, had admitted in his statement that he was entrusted Rs. 40,000 by the petitioner out of which Rs. 30,000 was found missing from his bag. (b) THE request of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses was not accepted and charges were framed by the Inquiry Officer himself and not by the appointing authority. (c) In para 37 of the enquiry report, it has been held that Satish Chandra Dixit was personally liable for Rs. 30,000 but all the three peons as well as the petitioner were dismissed from service by order dated 4.4.1989. Appeals were preferred by the aforesaid persons on the administrative side of this Court under Rule 7 of the U. P. Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1976. The appeals preferred by Ravish Chandra and Mumtaz Hasan were allowed and they were re-instated in service. The appeals filed by the petitioner and Satish Chandra Dixit were rejected by order dated 22.12.1993.;