Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.06.2007 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.1270/2005, the order dated 25.08.2009 passed in Review Petition No.45/2008 and the order dated 05.09.2005 passed by the respondent no.2.
(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are that the petitioner was selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police through Provincial Civil Service Examination, 1991 and after completion of his training, he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1996. Later on, he was posted at various districts including Pauri Garhwal, Bijnore, Jhansi, CRP Moradabad, Zonal Intelligence Officer, Aligarh and lastly at Mathura. At Mathura, he was assigned the duty of security of Krishna Janam Sthaan. While he was posted there in the year 2003 at Mathura, one incident took place, wherein one Dr. Umesh Chandra Maheshwari, a practicing doctor and having his clinic and nursing home at Mathura, went missing on 09.07.2003 while coming back from his clinic to his residence. His son Dr. Shashank Maheshwari lodged an FIR on 10.07.2003 at Police Station Govind Nagar, Mathura and a case at Case Crime No.113/2003 under Section 364-A IPC was registered by the police. In the FIR, the name of the petitioner or any other person as accused was not mentioned and only doubt has been expressed that his father might have been abducted by unknown criminals for realizing ransom. Dr. Umesh Chandra Maheshwari was set at liberty by his captors on 02.08.2003 and reached Mathura on 03.08.2003 safely. Dr. Maheshwari categorically stated before the Press that he was released by his captors without any ransom being paid and without any intervention of the police. He also stated that there was no payment of ransom so the question would not arise of involvement of his trusted aide.
(3.) The petitioner was arrested on 29.08.2003 by a team of police officers while he was at his official residence. From his residence, an amount of rupees eleven lacs fifty thousand was recovered. The aforesaid money was claimed belonging to the parents of the petitioner, for which he also submitted explanation that it was in lieu of a flat, which was agreed upon to be sold by her mother, which was in her name and in respect of which, his mother has received part payment. As the money got involved in judicial proceedings and the aforesaid vendees were demanding refund of the same as they remained no longer interested in purchasing the aforesaid property, ultimately the mother of the petitioner executed the sale deed on 20.11.2006 to some other person for a sum of rupees sixteen lacs twenty five thousand and refunded the amount to the earlier vendees. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and finally a charge-sheet was filed against him for the alleged offences under Sections 364A/411 IPC. The petitioner was ultimately enlarged on bail on 19.12.2003. While the petitioner was in judicial custody, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the State Government under Rule 7(1) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules') and DIG Range, Agra was appointed as enquiry officer to inquire into the alleged misconduct by the petitioner. The enquiry officer-DIG Range, Agra vide letter dated 29.10.2003, directed the petitioner to submit his written statement within eight days from the date of receipt of the said letter. The petitioner vide his letter dated 09.11.2003 informed the enquiry officer that neither the police investigation is over nor any formal charges have been framed against him and as such he is not aware of the precise nature of the allegations against him, therefore, he requires the relevant documents/material for submitting his reply and asked for 15 days more time for filing reply.;