- (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner is to quash the citation dated 4-4-1984 as contained in Annexure-3.
(2.) THE relevant facts for the purposes of disposal this writ petition are in narrow compass. THE petitioner at the relevant time was Sale Point Supervisor at Nagla Bhajuwa in Block Sakit, District Etah, who was dismissed on 31-1-1974 after he was found guilty in the departmental proceed ings. He was found to have embezzled government property worth Rs. 22182. 91 paise which is sought to be recovered from him through the recovery proceeding. Sri Prakash Chandra, learned coun sel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, made a short contention, namely, that the criminal case instituted against the petitioner in regard to those very govern ment properties by this Court, ultimately ended in his acquittal and for this reason the recovery proceeding is liable to be quashed. Sri Yadav, learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, contended that it is true that after his conviction by the trial court in petitioner's Criminal appeal No. 2002 of 1976 this Court held that it was very doubt ful that it was he who had misappropriated the deficit stocks which, means that the petitioner was given a benefit of doubt, be sides this finding although recorded by this Court shall remain of a criminal court and thus shall have no bearing on the controver sy in question.
(3.) ON the showing of Mr. Prakash Chandra himself it is clear that this Court had given benefit of doubt to the petitioner in the criminal case. This is of no help to the petitioner so far as his prayer to quash the recovery proceeding is concerned. In the result we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, we dis miss it but in the peculiar facts and cir cumstances make no order as to cost.;