- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. :- Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of Counsel for the parties this writ petition is being finally disposed of.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 28-12-2004 Annexure-11 to the writ petition. A further writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to pay arrears of promotional scale and fix pensionary benefits according to rules. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are; Petitioner who was working as District Youth and Welfare/prd Officer, Fatehpur, was charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 22-7-1996, 31-10-1996, 31-10-1996, 12-12-1997 and 15-5- 1998. The disciplinary enquiry proceeded in pursuance of the charge-sheet and subsequently the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 24-7-1998. The petitioner filed an appeal and representation which too were dismissed. A writ petition No. 12872 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal order dated 24-7-1998 and the orders dated 10-2-1999 and 10-11-1998. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 22-5-2003. The operative portion of the judgment is extracted below: "for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 24-7- 1998, 10-2-1998 and 10-11-1998 (Annexures-25 and 27 to the writ petition) respectively are set aside. It will be open to the respondents to proceed with the inquiry from the stage of charge-sheet and to conclude the same in accordance with law. Petitioner will be treated to have retired on attaining the age of superannuation, and he shall be entitled to get the provisional pension and other retiral benefits subject to the result of inquiry against the petitioner. " From perusal of the judgment it appears that the writ petition was allowed on the ground that there was violation of principle of natural justice. Enquiry Officer proceeded to take evidence behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. Overlapping charges were found in respect of later charge-sheets submitted by the enquiry Officer. This Court permitted enquiry from the stage of charge- sheet and directed to conclude the same. The petitioner was treated to have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. After the order of this Court dated 22-5-2003 a charge-sheet was given on 28-12-2004 containing 19 charges. The charge-sheet dated 28- 12-2004 has been challenged in this writ petition. This Court vide interim order dated 19-7-2005 has stayed the further proceedings in pursuance of the subsequent charge-sheet dated 28- 12-2004. The learned Counsel for the petitioner informs at the bar that vide letter dated 27-5-2005 the petitioner was asked to submit reply to the charge-sheet 1 to 6 as mentioned above.
(3.) COUNTER-affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which various charges mentioned against the petitioner have been highlighted. It has been stated against the petitioner that the enquiry has been again initiated by the charge-sheet dated 28-12- 2004. It is stated that the petitioner has not replied the charge-sheet. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.;