Sushil Harkauli and V. D. Chaturvedi, JJ. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel.
(2.) BY the impugned order dated 24.2.1995 the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, has rejected the claim petition of the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal which dismissed the claim petition and therefore, the petitioner has come to this Court in this writ petition. The petitioner was charged with the misconduct of embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 3,908.88 p. The charge was that he had collected some money from certain farmers but had failed to deposit the entire amount in the Government Treasury. The shortage in deposit was Rs. 3,908.88p.
(3.) THE charge-sheet is dated 19.7.1985. THE petitioner sought further 15 days time for filing a reply on the ground that he had to attend to his ailing wife. This request of the petitioner was refused by the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry report dated 26.8.1985 was submitting holding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct on the basis of records, i.e., the receipts and the accounts of deposits. The petitioner was tried for the same charge of embezzlement by a criminal court and was acquitted by the Munsif Magistrate, Sitapur by a detailed judgment dated 29.6.1989. In the judgment the criminal court has held that the witnesses produced by the prosecution denied having given money to the petitioner and, as such, the question of failure to deposit the same did not arise. It is not clear whether all the persons mentioned in the departmental charge-sheet were examined by the prosecution in the criminal trial and if all were not examined what was the cause for not examining all the witnesses.;