SHISHIR KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE amendment application has been filed by the petitioner for adding following grounds and the reliefs - (B) After ground(c) the following be added as grounds (d) to (k) namely - (d) Because there was no material to show, nor was the petitioner responsible for alleged embezzlement. (e) Because the concerned peon and Section Head are responsible for alleged embezzlement. (f) Because the respondents have failed to apply their mind in passing the impugned orders. (g) Because the appellate authority failed to apply its mind and had passed non -speaking discriminatory order. (h) Because the impugned order are against the facts and circumstances of the case and against the law. (i) Because the National Industrial Tribunal failed to consider the violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (j) Because the respondents are not illegally releasing the amount of provident fund and gratuity to the petitioner. (k) Because the respondents have wrongly ignored the findings recorded by the Court of law in a criminal proceedings in which the petitioner was acquitted against the same charges. (C) After prayer (e) the following be added as prayer (f) and (g) namely - (f) To issue writ, order or direction quashing the orders dated 3 -6 -1988, 5 -1 -1989 and 12 -9 -1994 (Annexures 9, 10 and 16 to the writ petition) respectively. (g) In the alternative, a suitable writ, order or directions be issued directing the respondents to pay provident fund and gratuity with interest.
(2.) BEFORE taking into consideration, the merits of the amendment application, it will be necessary to give certain facts. The writ petition was filed in the year 2000 only to stay the order dated 11 -12 -1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post, which was held by him, with all consequential benefits from 3 -6 -1988 till date. The petitioner was working as a Cashier in Chandausi Branch in the office of Life Insurance Corporation of India since 1982. A departmental enquiry was conducted by the respondents and a show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner was dismissed from service on 3 -6 -1988. A First Information Report was also lodged against the petitioner on the basis of which the case was registered against the petitioner as Criminal Case No. 380 of 1991, State v. Amod Prakash Gupta. An appeal against the order of dismissal was filed before the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Central Regional Office, Kanpur, which was also dismissed on 5 -1 -1989. The petitioner against the appellate order had also approached the National Industrial Tribunal at Bombay, which too was dismissed on 12 -9 -1994. The petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court on 22 -9 -1997. It is made clear that the order dated 12 -9 -1994 passed by the National Tribunal has not been challenged by the petitioner in any Court. After the acquittal, the petitioner on 17 -6 -1998 had filed a representation to the Senior Divisional Manager with a prayer that as the petitioner has been acquitted from the Criminal Court, therefore, the petitioner be reinstated in service of the corporation with effect from 21 -6 -1988 by setting aside the order of dismissal. The aforesaid representation dated 22 -9 -1997 was not decided in spite of the reminder sent by the petitioner dated 4 -10 -1998, then the petitioner had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 27321 of 1999 with a simplicitor prayer directing the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner dated 17 -6 -1998 in the light of the judgment of the Criminal Court dated 22 -9 -1997. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of finally on 9 -7 -1999 with a direction to concerned authority to decide the petitioner's representation dated 17 -6 -1998 and 11 -10 -1998, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order in accordance with law. In view of the direction of this Hon'ble Court, the representation of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 11 -12 -1999. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in the month of May, 2000 with following prayers - (a) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 11 -12 -1999. (b) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to reinstate the petitioner on the post which was held by him with all consequential service benefits from 3 -6 -1998. (c) To issue any such other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (d) To award the costs of this Writ Petition to the petitioner. A detailed counter -affidavit was filed by the respondents in the month of September 2000. Then the petitioner has filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C. for amending the writ petition and the relief mentioned above.
(3.) NOW the question for consideration before this Court is whether the amendment application, which has been filed in the year 2002 for claiming the relief of the order of dismissal dated 3 -6 -1988 confirmed by the appellate authority on 5 -1 -1989 and the order dated 12 -9 -1994 passed by the National Industrial Tribunal permitted to be challenged in the present writ petition.;