- (1.) By means of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of dismissal dated 8.11.1995 and writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned order and reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from 8.11.1995, pay him salary and all other consequential benefits together with 12 per cent interest.
(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of instant writ petition are that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Agricultural Inspector at Tarabganj, District Gonda in the year 1984 and he was on sanctioned leave with effect from 14.10.1984 till 21.10.1984. In the meantime, the petitioner was attached to the office and one Kameshwar Singh posted at his place who took charge of godown where fertilizer was stored. In the absence of the petitioner stock was checked and found short and an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and criminal proceedings were initiated. The departmental proceedings were initiated on the ground of alleged embezzlement and the petitioner was placed under suspension by opposite party no.2. The petitioner filed writ petition no.3549 (SS) of 1986 which was finally disposed of vide order dated 2.6.1986 to the following effect:- "APPLICATION FOR STAY LUCKNOW DATED: 2.6.1986. Hon'ble D.S.Bajpai, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Standing counsel, in pursuance to my order dated 26th May, 1986 has not been in a position to indicate or bring on record any thing to indicate the progress of the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of the suspension order dated 13th November, 1984. In this view of the matter, the suspension order appears on the face of it to be a penal and cannot be sustained for a long time, serve in the instant case a period of about 18 months has passed. The order of suspension dated 13th November, 1984 is accordingly, suspended and it is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to perform his duties and get his full salary. The Authorities concerned shall be at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings in case they feel that this is any material against the petitioner. sd/-D.S.Bajpai, xxx xxx xxx 2.6.1986."
(3.) Subsequently charge sheet was submitted by opposite party no.2 on 7.1.1986 to which reply was submitted by the petitioner on 8.8.1988, but the same was not considered by the opposite parties and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by which the alleged amount of embezzlement was increased from Rs.2,64,656.21 paise to Rs.3,29,998.99 paise, contained in Annexure No.13 to the writ petition. A supplementary charge sheet dated 29.09.1989 was also served upon the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition, in which following order was passed on 19.11.1993:- "Lucknow Dated:19.11.1993. Hon'ble Mrs. Smt. Shobha Dikshit, J. Learned Standing Counsel accepts notice and prays for time to seek instructions or file counter affidavit he is allowed ten days for the purpose. List on 6.12.1993 when the learned counsel will inform as to whether any final order have been passed or not as also the state of Criminal Trial pending against him." xxx xxx xxx sd/- Smt. S.Dikshit. xxx xxx xxx 19.11.1993.";