V.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is of the year 2001. On 31.3.2001 the Standing Counsel was allowed one month's time for filing counter affidavit. A stop-order was passed on 22.5.2001 allowing one month's and no more further time to the Standing Counsel for filing counter affidavit. Since no counter affidavit has been filed by the Standing 'Counsel in spite of stop-order, and we are in the year 2008, we are proceeding to dispose of the petition finally.
(2.) THE present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, interalia - praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner of the suspension period, and with a further prayer for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order:dated 14.8.2000 passed by the respondent no.2 in-so-far-as it has detained the payment of salary for the suspension period. The petitoner was suspended by the order dated 3.11.1999. In departmental proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted his enquiry Report dated 7.6.2000. In the said Enquiry Report the Inquiry Officer has concluded that the Charges Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 against the petitioner were proved, and further it was concluded by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner alone was not guilty and Gram Shiksha Samiti was also guilty. The Inquiry Officer recommended the punishment of 'Warning' as well as 'stoppage of one annual increment for two years' and for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with salary. Copy of the Enquiry Report has been filed as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition. The Disciplinary Authority considered the Enquiry Report and passed an order dated 14.8.2000 reinstating the petitioner in service and .forfeiting the balance salary for the suspension period. The continuity in service was granted to the petitioner and for the year 1999-2000 "CENSURE" entry was awarded by the order dated 14.8.2000. Copy of the said order dated 14.8.2000 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition.
(3.) WE have heard Sri. P.R. Maurya learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the balance salary for the suspension period cannot be forfeited by the Disciplinary Authority while reinstating the employee in service. It is further submitted that Rule 54-B (1) and (5) of Chapter VIII of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules (Financial Hand Book Vol. II, Part II to IV) contemplates giving of notice and opportunity to the employee before any order regarding forfeiture of balance salary of such employee is passed while reinstating him in service. No notice or opportunity in this regard has been given to the petitioner.;