V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) IN the present case, petitioner has rushed to this Court questioning the validity of the decision dated 01.02.2012, Annexure -5 to the writ petition wherein order of punishment has been passed for making recovery from Lal Singh to the extent of share of Rs. 7,46,500/ - for having caused loss to the State Government by misappropriating the amount meant for scholarship of socially backward classes. Brief background of the case as is reflected that petitioner has been performing and discharging duty as Senior Assistant in the office of District Social Welfare Officer, Kanpur Dehat. In respect of various serious irregularities being committed, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.04.2000. Petitioner at the said juncture preferred writ petition before this Court wherein this Court proceeded to pass interim order and left it open for departmental proceedings to proceed. Thereafter on 21.08.2000 one Phool Chand Deputy Director, Headquarter was appointed as an inquiry officer and charge sheet dated 14.09.2000 was issued and thereafter it appears that certain new facts emerged and as per the same various amount in question has been misappropriated which was otherwise meant for extending benefit to the students from Scheduled Caste category. Petitioner was again placed under suspension vide order dated 26.09.2000 and one R.B. Sonkar Additional District Development Officer, Headquarter has been nominated as Inquiry Officer, and charge sheet dated 26.09.2000 was issued. R.B. Sonkar did not complete inquiry and then by order dated 27.08.2001, Deputy Director Social Welfare Lucknow Division Lucknow has been appointed as Inquiry Officer and thereafter as there were two sets of disciplinary proceedings and it was pertaining to same district, it was resolved that inquiry be conducted by single Inquiry Officer and accordingly Phool Chand Deputy Director, Social Welfare Lucknow Division Lucknow was nominated as Inquiry Officer. As there was delay in not completing the inquiry as such suspension order was revoked on 28.05.2003 and thereafter it appears that Rama Kant Deputy Director, Headquarter was nominated as Inquiry Officer on 18.06.2008. Said Inquiry Officer submitted report and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.06.2008 and petitioner submitted his reply on 24.12.2008 and then it was resolved that matter be re investigated and one P.C. Upadhyay was appointed as Inquiry Officer. P.C. Upadhayay on the basis of reply submitted to the charge sheet submitted his report on 29.11.2009 and thereafter as petitioner has already attaining the age of superannuation, in this background on the premises that inquiry shall be treated to be in operation, impugned order in question has been passed for recovery of the amount in question.
(2.) SRI Islam Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated before this Court that the enquiry report is farce, as after submitting reply to the charge sheet no date has been fixed for holding of enquiry and based on the reply submitted, without holding enquiry opinion of guilt has been formed, the proceedings are in breach of natural justice as well the principles of equity and fair play, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. Countering the said submissions, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter, which need not be interfered with.
(3.) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, relevant Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rues, 1999 are to be looked into, and for ready reference, they are being quoted below:;