- (1.) HEARD Mr. S S L Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the orders of punishment dated 9th of April 2010 as well as order dated 27.08.2010 whereby three annual increments have been stopped permanently and it has also been decided not to pay salary for the further period, except the subsistence allowance.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not supplied the relevant documents in support of his charges along with the charge sheet. However, the petitioner submitted reply of charge sheet on 19.10.1996 denying the charges, as he has never committed any financial irregularity. It is further stated that the order dated 27.08.2010 is a non -speaking order as no reasons have been disclosed therein. Thus the petitioner claims the violation of Principles of Natural Justice in his disciplinary proceedings. It is stated that the Inquiry Officer also failed to fixed any date for conducting inquiry and no witness of inquiry in support of charges levelled against the petitioner which violates the mandate of Rule 7(V) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The petitioner also claims that withholding rest of the salary for the period of suspension is not permissible under the Rule 54 of Fundamental Rules. He has further stated that once this Court stipulated the the period of conclusion of inquiry, it was not open for the Inquiry Officer to prolong the inquiry. In support of his submission he has cited a case i.e. M.L. Sachdev Vs. Union of India, 1991 1 SCC 605, State of U.P. Vs. S.K. Pandey, 1996 9 SCC 395.;