- (1.) Heard Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged order dated 29.11.2005 passed by opposite party No.2, as contained in annexure No.1 to the writ petition. By this order the Commissioner Faizabad Division, Faizabad has passed the order of punishment on 29.11.2005. By this order the earlier punishment order dated 23.12.1993 has been confirmed. The petitioner was removed from service by the earlier order dated 23.12.1993. The petitioner had filed writ petition No.271 (S/S) of 1994. This Court set aside the order on the ground that the inquiry report was not given to the petitioner prior to passing of the punishment order. Although a ground has been raised by learned Standing counsel that the petitioner has not been able to show any prejudice to have been caused by non-supply of inquiry report. However, this Court did not agree with the argument of learned Standing counsel and set aside the removal order. This Court fixed a date on which the petitioner was to appear before the opposite parties, who were supposed to give him a copy of the inquiry report. Lateron the petitioner was given a chance to file objection to the inquiry report and the opposite parties had to consider the objection and to pass fresh order. The petitioner appeared on the date fixed and was given the inquiry report. However, instead of filing any objection to the inquiry report and the procedure of the inquiry adopted, the petitioner simply narrated the facts which he had already done in the previous inquiry. He did not take any objection about any witness, document or interpretation by the inquiry officer. He did not even ask for cross examination of any witness or the permission to produce his witness in defence. The appointing authority has explained in his subsequent order that since the petitioner did not raise any substantial question about the procedure of the inquiry or its merits, the earlier order has been upheld and reiterated. There does not appear to be any good reason to interfere with the order of the appointing authority passed on 29.11.2005.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised one more objection that since the inquiry was continued after he retired from service, hence the permission of Governor of the State was required. He further adds that once his pension papers were processed and pension was allowed to be given to the petitioner it became imperative that Rule 351-A should have been adhered to and the pension could not have been stopped without the permission of His Excellency the Governor.;