- (1.) Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yatindra, learned standing counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri V. K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned Punishment & Recovery Order dated 12.5.2016 passed by the Respondent no.5 against the petitioner, with its all consequential effects whatsoever throughout. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned show cause notices dated 5.5.2012 and 12.6.2015 alongwith the punishment/recovery based thereupon vide orders dated 4.11.2015 and 19.11.2015 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively to the extent they are related with the petitioner with its all consequential effects whatsoever throughout. (iii) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make the payment of regular full monthly salary of the petitioner with all other admissible service benefits and refund the deducted amount of his salary also along with admissible Bank Rate Interest, to him. (iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent no.6 to decide the Revision/Representation within a short and specified period of time in a speaking manner by providing real opportunity of hearing to petitioner and communicate the order/result of Revision also to the petitioner at his residential address.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner has any role in the purchase of three pumps in question nor he was member of the Purchase Committee nor he has any role in its installation or releasing the security money and yet without considering his reply and without assigning any reason the respondent no.2 has passed an order dated 4.11.2015 holding the petitioner liable for 50% of the alleged financial loss caused on account of purchase of the three pumps and the amount spent on its repair. He filed an appeal before the respondent no.5 who also decided the appeal in the same fashion without assigning any reason to hold the petitioner guilty of the alleged financial loss in purchase of pumps and also in fixing his liability to the extent of 1/3 cost of pumps. He submits that pursuant to the order dated 21.4.2016 passed in writ petition no.17851 of 2016, an interim protection for non recovery of the amount till decision in appeal was granted by the appellate-authority. He further submits that the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 12.5.2016 passed by the appellate authority both are totally non speaking and without application of mind. He submits that both the orders are wholly arbitrary and infact indicative of non discharge of statutory duty by the authorities concerned.;