- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. Sri M. S. Negi, learned counsel for the peti tioner and Sri Vinod Misra, learned counsel for respondent- Corporation are agreed that since the matter is of 1986 origin, the same may be finally disposed of. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to decide the case finally in accordance with Rules of the Court.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by order of removal from service, dated September 8, 1986 passed by Managing Director, U. P. Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow, which has been enclosed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. According to Sri Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner, out of six charges levelled against the petitioner, all the charges, except charge Mo. 4 stood proved in accordance with the report of the Enquiry Officer. In this behalf, so far as charge No. 1 is concerned, it relates to non-submission of trial balance from April 1985 to January 1986 for Varanasi District. Since the petitioner did not receive relevant documents, well in time, he could not submit trial balance. Charge No. 2 is to the effect that despite order of District Manager Varanasi, the petitioner did not take charge of old vouchers and accounts from Junior Clerk. To this charge, Sri Negi contends that it is for the Junior Clerk to hand over vouchers to the petitioner and it is not for the petitioner to chase the Junior Clerk to deliver old vouchers, and, as such, the charge is not proved. To this, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the petitioner had received the vouchers from his Junior Clerk but did not forward the same to the management. Therefore, the charge stands proved.
(3.) CHARGE No. 3 is that the petitioner does not take interest in the work by disobeying orders of Head Office. Sri Negi vehemently urged before this Court that this charge is 'so vague' and 'indefinite' that no man of ordinary prudence can give any reply to such a 'vague' charge. No particular instance has been quoted while levelling such a 'vague' charge. As regards charge Nos. 5 and 6. Sri Negi contends that the charges are not so serious in nature warranting major punishment of removal from service.;