Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Uma Kant Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder -affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the case is disposed of finally on merits.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22.8.1990 passed by Commissioner, Excise, Uttar Pradesh, contained in Annexure -16 of the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Excise Inspector to his original post of Sub -Excise Inspector. On 7.9.1990 while entertaining the writ petition this Court has stayed the effect and operation of impugned order dated 22.8.1990. Thus, at the strength of aforesaid interim order passed by this Court the petitioner continued on the post of Excise Inspector and has attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.1998 and his post retiral benefits have also been paid, but on account of pendency of above noted writ petition he was paid his pension only as interim measure has not been paid on final measure. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while holding disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority did not supply the copies of statements relied upon in the inquiry proceedings against him and the inquiry was also found faulty on account of non -observance of principles of natural justice. Besides this the charges levelled against the petitioner were not serious enough to warrant major penalty imposed against him. The charges were of mere negligence and irregularity of years 1986 and 1987 and have no direct bearing with any embezzlement etc. From the bare perusal of impugned order it indicates that the petitioner has not been held responsible for committing any embezzlement directly rather he has been found guilty of misconduct for committing some sort of negligence and irregularity in discharging of his duties as Excise Inspector while controlling his subordinate officials and staff in a disciplinary inquiry held against him. Thus, in view of these facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned Counsel for petitioner appears to have some substance and deserves to be accepted. That apart a fresh inquiry would be barred by the provisions of Regulation 351 -A of Civil Services Regulation as the incident in question is of the years 1986 and 1987 and the petitioner has also been retired from service in the year 1998 since then a period of about 7 years have passed. Thus, in view of the petitioner's continuance at the strength of interim order and attaining the age of superannuation, it would not be just and pragmatic approach to examine the validity of impugned order in a more technical manner with pedantic approach. However, from the perusal of charges, even if found proved against the petitioner, it cannot be considered to be so serious as to warrant major penalty imposed against the petitioner. As such it would not just and proper to leave the matter to the disciplinary authority to hold any fresh inquiry de novo even by ignoring the bar of limitation provided by Regulations 351 -A of Civil Service Regulations in such a old and state matter of 1986 -1987 for fixing the responsibility of the petitioner or even for deciding quantum of punishment. In my considered opinion have regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed against the petitioner has lost its efficacy hence liable to be ignored and quashed by this Court, accordingly the same is hereby quashed.
(3.) THE respondents are directed to treat the petitioner continue in service on the post of Excise Inspector till he attained his age of superannuation and also give him consequential benefits of service including post retiral benefits, pension and gratuity etc. and they are directed to release the same if any is withheld on account of pendency of above noted writ petition within a period of three months from the date production of certified copy of the order passed by this Court. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition succeeds and allowed.;