- (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri K. C. Sinha and the learned Counsel for the State.
(2.) THIS is a petition of the year 2001 filed by a Government Servant challenging the order of punishment dated 19th March, 2001 (Annexure-21) by means of which his gratuity has been forfeited and 10% pension has been directed to be deducted every month. The petition was filed in the year 2001. Despite several opportunities, the State did not file any counter-affidavit. An stop order was passed on 22-1-2002 while giving time to the State for filing counter-affidavit but the State for the reasons best known to it preferred not to file any counter- affidavit till date. We, therefore, proceed to hear the writ petition on merits with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner while working as District Adult Education Officer in District Bahraich during the years 1991 to 1997, was served with a charge-sheet on 4th September, 1998 in respect of certain irregularities which were committed by him while implementing the scheme of Sampurna Saksharta Abhiyan. This charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 11th September, 1998 but since the charge-sheet was served without supplying the evidence mentioned therein the petitioner asked for the said evidence vide letter dated 29th September, 1998. The request was repeated in the letter dated 9th October 1998. But it is the case of the petitioner that all the necessary documents were not supplied, however, the petitioner submitted reply on 15th October, 1998 denying the charges levelled against him and praying that since he is to retire on 31st October, 1998, therefore, inquiry be completed before his retirement.
(3.) AFTER receipt of the reply, the Enquiry Officer on 16th October, 1998 again directed the Director, Adult Education to supply the concerned documents to the petitioner but the inquiry report says that since the Accounts were sealed by the Income Tax Department on 30th September, 1998, therefore, no documents could be supplied or shown to the petitioner. It was thereafter that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 10th November, 2000 and the impugned order of punishment has been passed on 19th March, 2001. It is the specific case of the petitioner in the writ petition and more particularly asserted in paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21- (a) that despite the fact that the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him in his reply, he was not afforded any opportunity to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. There is also a specific assertion that the petitioner did move an application on 20th October, 1998 and again on 2-12-1998 saying that he may be afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witness and to adduce the evidence to defence, but his applications remained unresponded. The inquiry report was submitted on 10-11- 2000.;