Daya Shankar Tripathi, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, prayer has been made to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.05.2013 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), by which 20% pension of the petitioner has been directed to be deducted. Further prayer has been made to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 1, by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate authority.
(2.) Facts giving rise to this writ petition, in brief, are that vide Office Memo No. 2264/62-1-2009-19 GW/2003, dated 15.09.2009, an enquiry was instituted against the petitioner under Article 351-A of Civil Services Regulations (hereinafter referred as 'CCR'), for committing serious irregularities and indiscipline in recruitment of backlog posts, while he was posted as Director, Ground Water Resources Department, U.P., Lucknow. An Enquiry Officer was appointed for conducting the enquiry against the petitioner. Charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 15.09.2009, in which two charges were framed. First charge framed against the petitioner was that he dissolved/modified the Selection Committee again and again, due to which unnecessary delay was caused in selection of backlog posts regarding to categories 'C' & 'D' of Ground Water Resources Department. The second charge framed against the petitioner was that he issued appointment letter to certain selected candidates and did not issue appointment letter to certain selected candidates, without any proper reason. Further additional charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 13.04.2010, in which one additional charge was framed against the petitioner stating therein that he transferred a number of 22 officials against the transfer policy of Government.
(3.) Petitioner submitted his reply dated 27.07.2010 against the aforesaid charge sheets issued against him. An enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and he submitted his enquiry report on 27.02.2010, by which charge nos. 1 and 2 framed against the petitioner were found to be proved and the additional charge framed against the petitioner was not found to be proved.;