- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner has come up challenging the order dated 18.9.2007 whereby his claim for re-consideration of his removal from service was rejected and order regarding recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,25,432/- was passed and it was also provided that the recovery order dated 19.8.2000 to recover a sum of Rs. 4,44,827.45/- is set aside and it was provided that for recovery of the same, separate order will be passed. The petitioner is claiming benefits of payment of gratuity and entire pensionary benefits.
(3.) Earlier, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 41192 of 2000 challenging the order dated 29.10.1999 whereby punishment of removal of petitioner from service and order of recovery of Rs. 1,25,432.36/- were passed, which was decided on 6.1.2006. The relevant paragraphs, wherein facts in brief of the case have been narrated, are quoted as under:- "Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents are present. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in Public Works Department on 18.8.1970 at Lucknow and thereafter he worked at many places and was transferred to Meerut in the year 1978 where he worked till 1982 and thereafter in the year 1990 to Bareilly from where he was to retire on 31.10.1999. The respondent no.2 Engineer in Chief, P.W.D. vide office memo dated 5.1.1996 instituted a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner in terms of Rule 5 of the Subordinate Service Punishment and Appeal Rules read with Rule 55 of the CCA Rules for irregularities alleged to have been committed by him as Assistant Engineer during the period 1979 to 1983 while he was posted at temporary Khand No.1 P.W.D., Meerut. Respondent no. 3 Superintendent Engineer, Meerut Circle Meerut was appointed as inquiry Office with a direction to proceed with the inquiry on day to day basis and complete the same within fifteen days and place the report along with all the relevant documents before him Charge Sheet dated 28.11.1996 was served upon the petitioner in which two charges had been framed. Charge No. 1 related to agreement No. E.E./81-82 dated 9.4.1981 with M/s. Jindal Construction Company regarding upgrading of the primary health centre for which did not recover the amount of the released steel from the four running bills paid to the contractor nor a reference was made regarding the same while handling over the charge to his reliever Sri Ramji Lal Sharma, Assistant Engineer due to which the State had to suffer a loss of Rs. 55,707/-. The charge NO. 2 relates to the period 3.10.1981 when the labour was recruited for patch repairing and painting works in the muster roll released by the then Assistant Engineer Sri R.K. Goel. Repair work was shown to have been done for 4 Kilo Meters of the 5 muster rolls without sanction which were handed over to the petitioner and who was required to dispose off the objections on the said muster roll but the said muster rolls were never placed for released of payment nor the labour shown have been engaged for the said purpose came forward to claim their wages, thus these muster rolls were considered to be forged, though the material was shown to have been consumed which has been valued at Rs.69,725.36 paise causing a loss to the State to the tune of the said amount. During the pendency of the inquiry, the petitioner demanded for the inspection and required the said copies of the documents from the inquiry officer but neither the original records were produced nor he was permitted to make inspection inspite of several requests made in writing to enable him to file a suitable reply. However, the petitioner met the inquiry officer on 2.9.1997 personally who permitted him to make an inspection of the record but out of 19 documents 14 documents were not available on record for inspection and he made an endorsement with regard to all th 14 documents which were not made available by the petitioner. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 24.9.1997 before the respondent no. 2 and recommended for a recovery of Rs. 1,25,432.36 paise. The respondent no. 2 issued notice dated 14.10.1998. The petitioner made several requests in writing to the respondent no. 2 bringing all the facts to its notice including the non-availability of the record for inspection but the respondent no. 2 admittedly did not provide any opportunity to the petitioner and passed an order dated 29.10.1999, imposing two punishments, firtly the recovery of Rs. 1,25,432.36 paise from the petitioner towards loss incurred by the petitioner State Government and secondly the removal of petitioner from the service with immediate effect.";