- (1.) O. P. Pradhan, J. Can the Disciplinary Authority while imposing major punishment, act on material/evidence which is neither supplied nor disclosed to the delinquent, is the only question of substance which arises for consideration in these writ petitions which I propose to dispose of by a common judgment since they raise the same questions.
(2.) DEFALCATION and irregular payment of pension as also the arrears of pension to the tune of Rs. 3,50,008. 00 came to be detected in Sub-Treasury, Bikapur, district Faizabad by the Senior Officer, Faizabad during his surprise inspection made on 14-1-1992. He submitted his report thereof to the District Magistrate, Faizabad on 15-1-192 The latter got it exa mined by A. D. M. (Finance and Revenue), who submitted his report to the District Magistrate on 19-1-1992. Thereupon the District Magistrate placed all the three petitioners under suspension vide his order dated 20-1-1992. The petitioners were Assistant Accountants in the Sub-Treasury, Bikapur during the relevant period (1989-91 ). However, the petitioner, Ram Pal Mishra had taken over charge at Bikapur Sub-Treasury on 31-7-1991. A charge- sheet, containing two charges was served on each petitioner on 30-4-1992. The petitioners submitted their written-statements of reply on 30-5-1992 and repudiated the charges. The S. D. M. Bikapur had been appointed Inquiry Officer and he intimated the petitioners on 21-7- 1992 that the inquiry would be held on 4-8-1992. However, the Inquiry Officer postponed the inquiry to 28-7-1992 and intimated this change to the petitioners by his letter dated 24-7-1992. The petitioners specifically requested the Inquiry Officer to provide them opportunity to cross-examine the persons, if examined during oral inquiry. They also remained present on 28-7-1992 in the Officer/court of the Inquiry Officer till 5 p, m. but no oral inquiry was held nor were they intimated that some pensioners had already been examined. The petitioners' grievance is that no opportunity at all was provided to them to cross-examine the pensioners who were examined in their absence on some date other than the date fixed for inquiry, of which no intimation was given to them. The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report on 31-7-1992 and the District Magistrate, who is the Disciplinary Authority, issued on 4-8- 1992 a show-cause notice to the petitioners as to why they should not be dismissed from service and the recovery of money be not made from them. The copy of the inquiry report was also sent together with the said show-cause notice. The petitioners submitted their reply to the show-cause notice on 19- 8-1992. The District Magistrate in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal from service on 28-8-1992 against each petitioner and also directed the recovery of money from petitioners. Sri Nath Upadhayaya and Lalta Prasad. The petitioner, Ram Pal Mishra was exonerated of the second charge by the Inquiry Officer as also the Disci plinary Authority and no recovery of money was directed against him. Each petitioner has challenged the order dated 28-8-1992. passed by the Disciplinary Authority by means of his respective writ petition, and a writ of certiorari for quashing the same has been prayed for with the conse quential writ of mandamus for treating each petitioner in service. The writ petitions have been contested and in the counter-affidavit filed, it has been averred that the inquiry against the petitioners was held in |accordance with law and adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses, and adduce evidence in their defence. It has been further asserted in the counter-affidavit that the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioners by the Disciplinary Authority, on a consideration of the relevant material inclu ding the inquiry report and the replies given by the petitioners in response to the charge-sheet and the show-cause notice.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the other side and perused the record as also the original record of inquiry which was specifically summoned by the Court for its perusal to ascertain if the statements of the pensioners were recorded behind the back of the petitioners and whether any opportunity to cross-examine such pensioners was afforded to the petitioners. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioners that in the charge-sheet, which was served separately on each petitioner, there is no mention of any oral evidence to be produced in support of the charges, but a persual of the impugned order dated 28-8-1992 indicates that state ments of fourteen pensioners were recorded by the Inqui ry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority has also relied upon their statements while recor ding his satisfaction regarding the charges, levelled against the petitioners. It is also found from a perusal of the impugned order that both the charges, levelled against the petitioners, Sri Nath Upadhyaya and Lalta Prasad were found established. However, against petitioner Ram Pal Mishra it was the first charge only which was found established. In the impugned order dated 28-8-1992, it is also clearly mentioned that the Inquiry Officer had given opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the pensioners.;