- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. 1. This special appeal under Rule Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21-04-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 42 of 2006 (S/s), Pradeep Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in limine.
(2.) A writ petition bearing No. 42 of 2006 (S/s) was filed before the learned Single Judge by the petitioner- Pradeep Kumar Saxena for the following reliefs i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned punish ment order dated 11-11-2005 issued by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 1 ). ii. To issue a writ, order or direc tions in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Re spondents to pay the arrears of his salary from the date of his first suspension. iii. To issue a writ, order or direc tions in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Re spondents to pay the interest on the above mentioned arrears of salary alongwith penal interest to the petitioner. iv. To issue or grant any order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v. Award the cost of the Petition to the petitioners. The petitioner- Pradeep Kumar Saxena (appellant) was an employee in the department of Medical Health and Family Planning and was a Senior Clerk posted at Chainrai District Mahila Hos pital, Haridwar. Due to the various com plaints received against him regarding fi nancial irregularities committed by him during the year 2000 to 2003, the com petent authority framed 33 charges of misappropriation against the petitioner (appellant ). Thereafter, the Chief Medi cal Officer, Haridwar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer, af ter providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner (appellant) submitted his report to the disciplinary authority hold ing that the charges levelled against the petitioner (appellant) had been proved and found him guilty for the said charges levelled against him except one. There after, the disciplinary authority provided him copy of the inquiry report and di rected him to submit his reply against the said report. The punishing authority af ter providing him sufficient opportunity punished him vide order dated 11-11-2005 (annexure-2 of the appeal ). The punishment order has been passed af ter departmental enquiry against him whereby his pension was stopped perma nently and it was further directed that the amount of embezzlement of Rs. 11,96,289/- be adjusted against the gratuity payable to the petitioner (appel lant ). The petitioner (appellant) was served with the chargesheet and F. I. R. was also lodged against him. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents where in it has been pleaded that the appellant was given opportunity to defend himself after the chargesheet was served to him but he did not participate in the inquiry inspite of the sufficient opportunities provided to him. It was further pleaded in the counter affidavit that the appellant was also served with the copy of the enquiry report but inspite of the service of the inquiry report, he did not make any rep resentation before the disciplinary au thority against it.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 21-04-2006. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the present special appeal has been pre ferred by the appellant.;