RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE matrix of the case, shorn of details are that petitioner while holding the post of Deputy Director, Forest, class -II post was serving as Divisional Sales Manager, Gonda on deputation in U.P. Forest Corporation between the period 21.2.1999 to 7.3.2001. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.9.2005 and a charge sheet dated 6.10.2005 was issued to him for the following three charges:- JUDGEMENT_662_TLALL0_2013.jpg JUDGEMENT_662_TLALL0(1)_2013.jpg The petitioner was required to submit his reply within fifteen days of receipt of the aforesaid charge sheet which is claimed to have been received by him on 20.10.2005. The petitioner submitted his reply specifically denying all the charges and stating that there was no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the charge alleged as it was a manipulation at the depot level by the erring officials who had already been found guilty and punished on the same charges as levelled against him. The petitioner also appended therewith documents relied upon by him in support of his case. However, the inquiry officer submitted his report to the Government along with letter dated 15.12.2005.
(3.) BY the aforesaid inquiry report, petitioner was completely exonerated of the first and second charges on the ground that there was not even an iota of evidence against him for proving the allegation of transferring excess money to the purchaser causing pecuniary loss to the Corporation. As regards charge no. 3 is concerned, the inquiry officer recorded a categorical finding that misconduct was committed by Sri J.P. Patel, an Assistant Grade -II by misinforming in writing that security amount was forfeited and thus the said irregularity was neither committed nor was within the knowledge of the petitioner. A finding of fact on the basis of evidence in the inquiry is also recorded by the inquiry officer in the report that the delinquent employee Sri J.P. Patel was solely responsible for the loss from whom the recovery of loss suffered by the department is to be made, hence, it was not desirable to charge another person for the same in the spirit of the Government order dated 18.12.2000.;