SHIV PRATAP SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-38
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 24,2006

SHIV PRATAP SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) SHRI Narayan Shukla, J. Heard Mr. S. K. Tewari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) SINCE, common question of law and fact are involved in both the writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order. Through these writ petitions, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the dismissal order impugned dated 14-3-1991 as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition with all consequential benefits treating him in service throughout. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Subordinate Agriculture Service Group III and was confirmed on 1-4-1974 and then promoted to Cadre II. The petitioner joined at Pithoragarh on 5-10- 1985 and applied for leave for the period 24-4-1986 to 11-5-1986. On 31-12-1986, he was placed under suspension but he was transferred to Faizabad ignoring the suspension order. Since the petitioner was transferred to Faizabad hence disciplinary proceedings were not completed at Pithoragarh. The petitioner was again suspended on 25-3-1986 for committing embezzlement of certain amount. On transfer to Faizabad, he was again suspended on 9-1-1991 and was issued a charge-sheet dated 24-3- 1987 and the Deputy Director Agriculture. Soil Conservation, Faizabad was appointed Inquiry Officer, who was directed to complete the inquiry within three months. But no inquiry was held and to the utter surprise of the petitioner he was removed from service on 14-3-1991.
(3.) IT may be mentioned here that the petitioner was prosecuted under Section 409 IPC for committing embezzlement and ultimately was convicted thereunder. Since the recovery has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 11-10-1991 and the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31-7- 1998, no fresh inquiry can be initiated against him. Through Writ Petition No. 4569 (SS) of 2004, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner as he has attained the age of superannuation on 31-7-1998.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.