- (1.) Heard Sri Kshemendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Z.Zilani, learned Additional Advocate General, for the opposite parties.
(2.) Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the validity and correctness of the order dated 30.3.2001 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow (opposite party No.1) contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, whereby petitioner was found guilty for misappropriation of funds and a direction has been issued to recover a sum of Rs.50,82,266/- from the gratuity and pension of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 9 (1) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961.
(3.) Shorn off unnecessary details the facts of the case are as under : In the year 1955, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer and on account of his outstanding services, he was promoted to the post of Consolidation Officer in the year 1961. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation in the year 1979 and to the post of the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the year 1987. Lastly, he was promoted to the post of Special Land Acquisition Officer in the year 1988. While working as Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sharda Sahayak Pariyojana, Lucknow, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.7.1991. After retirement, the petitioner was paid 90% of G.P.F. Amount but the remaining 10% of GPF amount was withheld by the department. According to the petitioner, after lapse of more than four years from the date of retirement, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 19.7.1995 (received by the petitioner on 4.8.1995) containing three charge-sheets having different dispatch numbers of the same day i.e. 4.5.1995 and the petitioner was required to furnish his reply to the charge-sheets. According to him, the documents relied upon by the department were not furnished to the petitioner. However, after waiting for a considerable long time to get complete documents, the same were not furnished to the petitioner and as such, he submitted his provisional reply on 21.3.1998, denying all the charges, levelled against him. As the petitioner was not paid provisional pension apart from other terminal benefits due to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 522 (SB) of 1988. This Court, as an interim measure, vide order dated 2.8.1999, directed the opposite parties to complete the pension papers of the petitioner and to make payment of pension and other pensionary benefits within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order or to show cause within the same time.;