Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh alongwith Sri Ram Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagdish Misra learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: I issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned punishment order dated 15.1.2005 passed by Respondent No.1 in the Inquiry proceeding no.983/Sa Li-Anu. Ka(Shyama Ranjan) dated June 29,2001 (Annexure No.24). Ia) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of further quashing the impugned orders dated 16.03.2002 and 30.6.2002 passed by the Respondents (Annexure no.1 to this affidavit). II) Issue Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of money deducted from the pension and gratuity of the Petitioner in pursuance to the aforesaid impugned punishment order dated 15.1.2005 passed by Respondent No.1 in the Inquiry proceeding no.983/Sa Li - Anu Ka. (Shyama Ranjan) dated June 29,2001 (Annexure No.23).
(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Bhumi Bhawan Kar Amin in the Collectorate at Etawah. Thereafter, he was appointed as clerk in the year 1973. His services were regularised in the year 1980. He was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade - II in the year 1987. Since 1992 he was allowed a higher pay scale albeit as a Clerk. A charge sheet dated 29.6.2001 was issued to him containing five charges. The charge No.1 was that the petitioner collusively obtained benefit of time scale and staffing pattern. Charges nos. 2 to 5 relates to irregular and illegal appointment of a peon Mukesh Kumar who drawn salary for the period from 1.4.2000 to 2.8.2000 amounting to Rs.14,811/-. An inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer who submitted the inquiry report dated 27.5.2002 in which he found the charges to be proved. A show cause notice dated 27.8.2003 was issued to the petitioner to submit reply. He took the stand that copies of evidences were not provided to him. Thereupon the disciplinary authority again directed the inquiry officer to provide copies of evidences and submit a report thereafter. The copies of evidences were provided to the petitioner by the inquiry officer vide letter dated 16.8.2004 but even thereafter the petitioner has not submitted any reply. The inquiry officer afforded several opportunities to the petitioner but he has not availed it. Consequently, a show cause notice no.465, dated 27.11.2004 was issued by the District Magistrate, Etawah, requiring the petitioner to show cause that why a sum of Rs.67,664/- irregularly received by him, may not be deducted from his gratuity, the payment made to Sri Mukesh Kumar on account of irregular appointment, amounting to Rs.14,811/- be not deducted from the gratuity and why 15 % pension be not deducted for the misconduct. The aforesaid show cause notice was replied by the petitioner by a reply dated 15.12.2004. The disciplinary authority considered the reply and passed the punishment order dated 15.1.2004 whereby the punishment proposed in the show cause notice was awarded to the petitioner.;