- (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ajit Kumar Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent.
(2.) According to learned Counsel for the petitioner the chargesheet indicated the absence of rice husk in the rice mill for the year 2000-01 whereas the petitioner had certified the same earlier on 28.2.2001. The chargesheet has framed several charges against the petitioner where against an enquiry was held and the impugned order of dismissal has been passed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the enquiry was bad in law for violation of principles of natural justice and non following of the procedure prescribed for departmental enquiry and also that under the rules the major punishment prescribed can at the maximum be granted and no such punishment of recovery of amount alleged to be loss caused to the Government is prescribed as a punishment therefore while dismissing the petitioner from service the recovery of loss caused to the Government to the tune of Rs. 53,70,092.44 could not have been ordered against the petitioner. He states that for the very same absence of rice husk the rice millers were made responsible for the loss caused to the Government and proceeding of recovery by issuing recovery certificates were initiated against them. The rice millers filed writ petitions No. 33545 of 2001 and 31089 of 2001 before this Court where in they were granted protection against coercive methods by an interim order dated 4.3.2002 and 23.1.2002 as contained in Annexure 11 to the writ petition. According to him the aforesaid recovery could not be made from the petitioner under such circumstances.
(3.) Learned Standing counsel has opposed the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of an alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal.;