- (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner H.K. Sharma has prayed for quashing the punishment order dated 8.8.1995 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure no.3 to the writ petition) as well as order dated 27.2.1996 passed by appellate authority respondent no.2 (Annexure no.5 to the writ petition). Further prayer has been made to issue any other writ, order or direction as the Court thinks fit in the circumstances of the case. We have heard the petitioner Sri H.K. Sharma in person and Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3.
(2.) THE petitioner contended before us that neither the copies of the relevant documents were made available to him during the inquiry nor the witnesses demanded by him were called upon and summoned by the Inquiry Officer, as such the entire inquiry was concluded in a very illegal and biased manner by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner further contended that the Appellate Authority has not correctly considered the grounds taken by the petitioner against the order of punishment. The petitioner also contended that the penalty awarded to him is reduction of basic pay by two steps permanently, which is not a punishment provided in the service Rules, as such the penalty imposed is contrary to law. Petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment Samaru Ram Vs. Divisional Manager, L.I.C. Of India and others,1997 15 LCD 316.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was served charge sheet containing following three charges: "(1) That the petitioner while discharging functions as Administrative Officer in D.O. Haldwani during the year 1991 he levelled false allegations against Sri R.S. Srivastava, the then AGM in -charge of Delhi Regional Office for his alleged involvement in settlement of fraudulent claims pertaining to Hardwar Divisional Office. (2) That the petitioner while discharging functions as Administrative Officer in DO Haldwani during the year 1992 he made baseless allegations against Shri R.S. Srivastava, the then AGM in -charge of Delhi RO stating that he was making money not only in the settlement of claims but also in the postings of Divisional Managers and Branch Managers. (3) That the petitioner while discharging functions as Administrative Officer in DO Haldwani during the year 1992 he made frivolous allegations against the Officers in Regional Office, Lucknow." Learned counsel for respondents further contended that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and defence. The Inquiry Officer concluded enquiry in accordance with procedure established by law and found charge no.1 and 3 only proved against petitioner. The Inquiry Officer found that charge no.2 as not proved.;