D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order of termination dated 23-6-1988 passed by the Collector and the order dated 2-8-1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur on appeal there out.
(2.) The petitioner's case, inter alia, is that after having been appointed as Seasonal Amin reserved in 1972 and having worked upto 1976 the petitioner was appointed as Collection Amin in the year 1978. His services were governed by U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules (Rajasva Vibhag-6) and the Government order No. 119/I/66 (UO) 5472 (Revenue-Boated 9-8-1974 which does not provide for departmental inquiry and punishment except in Rule 30 which prescribes that in such a matter Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules would be applicable. By an order dated 30th July, 985 the petitioner after having been suspended, a chargesheet dated 15 4-1986 was issued to him to which he had replied on 5th June, 1986 Pursuant to the said charge-sheet inquiry was held and proceedings whereof has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds. On the basis of the report of inquiry the services of the petitioner were terminated by an order dated 23-6-1985 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Against which the petitioner preferred an appeal on 5-8-1988 which has been dismissed on 2-8-1989 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). It is these Annexures-2 and 4 to the writ petition, which have been impugned in this writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the inquiry was held ex parte behind the back of the petitioner and that no opportunity were given, various documents were not supplied, copy of deposition were not furnished, he was not given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and no copy of the report was supplied to him. He further alleged that according to charge No. '4' the petitioner was alleged to have embezzeled Rs. 10/- only on 12-6-1984, for which disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 30-7-1985, namely, after thirteen months while charge-sheet was issued on 15 4-1986 and the report of the inquiry was submitted in June, 1988. None of the charges except charge No. 4 was found to have been proved against the petitioner. It was alleged that instead of Rs. 65/40 paise the petitioner deposited Rs. 45.40 paise, which according to the petitioner was clerical error and he. was always ready to make good the deficiency of Rs. 10/-. He was never made aware of the audit objection nor he was asked to clarify the position. Criminal case is also pending against the petitioner On these grounds he assails the impugned Annexures-2 and 4 to the writ petition.;