- (1.) HEARD Mr.Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.7.1986 (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition), passed by the Housing Commissioner, Housing Board, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service as also the order dated 3.12.2011, passed by the Chairman of the U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad/Appellate Officer dismissing the petitioner's appeal preferred against the order of dismissal. The petitioner has also challenged the show cause notice dated 13.6.1986 issued to the petitioner during the course of inquiry.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad in 1973. He was posted in different divisions of the Parishad and in 1979 he was transferred to 9th Construction Division, Kanpur and was posted as Junior Engineer Stores with the charge of Stores and Maintenance and he worked as Junior Engineer Stores thereat till November, 1984. In November, 1984 the Assistant Engineer (Stores) verified the items of stock lying in the store and prepared an inventory of shortage of certain items and submitted it to the Housing Commissioner, on the basis of which the Housing Commissioner issued an order dated 5.8.1985 for an inquiry against the petitioner. During the course of verification, the shortage of items for the value of Rs.3,26,712.90 was detected in the stock, therefore, the petitioner was asked to compensate it within one month failing which he was proposed to be suspended. In reply the petitioner demanded the measurement books and other records to check alleged shortage and also requested for re -verification of stock, however, the petitioner was served a charge sheet dated 31.12.1985 by the Inquiry Officer on 4.1.1986 containing five charges. The charge No.1 is that being posted between the period of 31.7.1979 to 17.5.1985 as Junior Engineer the petitioner failed to keep properly the account of stock and thus was negligent in his working. Second charge is that during the course of physical verification the shortage of certain items of the value of Rs.3,27,711.40 has been found, which doubts his integrity and also by the aforesaid conduct he caused the financial loss of Rs.3,27,711.40 to the Parishad. Third charge is that the petitioner failed to submit the MAS account of EWS and LIG scheme No.3 from 4/84 to 5/85, which establishes his improper working. Charge No.4 speaks that at the time of transfer from Construction Division 9, Kanpur, he did not properly handed over the charge including the measurement books and stocks, account forms and Tools and Plants accounts to his successor. Fifth and last charge speaks that on his transfer he also did not hand over the physical charge of Tools and Plants of 9th Construction Division, Kanpur as well as 4th Circle Kanpur.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite repeated requests of the petitioner except some measurement books no other record could be made available to him, therefore, he could not submit the detailed reply of the charge sheet. However, even in absence of petitioner's reply of charge sheet the Inquiry Officer fixed the date of oral hearing on 29.4.1986, pursuant to which the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and recorded his oral statement, whereby he again demanded certain documents as also to make again the physical verification of all materials. It is also stated that the Inquiry Officer did not examine any witness in support of the charges and no records were made available and thus no opportunity was afforded to him for reconciliation of alleged shortage. However, on the basis of the said oral statement of the petitioner the Inquiry Officer submitted the charge sheet to the Housing Commissioner. On being found proved charge No.1, the Inquiry Officer arrived at conclusion that the petitioner has been found careless partially in discharging his duty, therefore, he recommended for giving warning to the petitioner. For charge No.2 the Inquiry Officer recommended for withholding two annual increments permanently and also not to give the charge of Store at least for three years or till completion of inquiry. For charge No.3 and 4 he recommended for awarding adverse entry in his annual character roll. For charge No.5 again he recommended for withholding two annual increments permanently. Further he also recommended to keep the petitioner under suspension and withhold the records from his custody.;