S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER was Assistant Krishi Nirikshak. He was working as such at Seed Store, Jarauna Mirzapur in the year 1982. An F.I.R. in respect of embez zlement was lodged against him on 16.6.1982 and simultaneously, petitioner was also suspended. Thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and his services were terminated on 27.4.1984. Copy of the said order is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, which was passed by Director, Agriculture U.P. In the said order, it is mentioned that petitioner was suspended on 28.9.1982 while in Para-3 of the writ petition, date of suspension is given as 6.6.1982. Deputy Director, Varanasi was appointed as enquiry offi cer, who gave charge-sheet to the petitioner on 27.6.1983, which was served on him on 30.6.1983. Time to file reply to the charge-sheet was extended four times. PETITIONER through letter dated 10.10.1983 asked for extension of time to file reply till 15.12.1983. Even till 15.12.1983, no reply was filed. Time to file reply till 24.1.1984 was once again given. However, no reply was filed. The first charge was regarding embezzlement of Rs. 28, 000/-. The sec ond charge was regarding embezzlement of Rs. 1371.90/-. The third charge was regarding embezzlement of Rs. 2349.6S/-. The fourth charge was regarding em bezzlement of Rs. 440.70/-. Total amount came to Rs. 32, 162.23/-. The charges were found proved on the basis of documents. Petitioner had not participated in the disciplinary proceedings. Even reply was not filed. The criminal case initiated against the petitioner resulted in acquittal, copy of which judgment delivered in Case No. 913 of 1982 by 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mirzapur on 6.3.1991 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the said judgment, it was also observed that charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and prosecution could not prove 'the case beyond reasonable doubt.
(3.) PETITIONER's case is that until 6.3.1991, he was not aware of this termi nation order. This allegation is not believable at all as obviously after termi nation order, suspension allowance must have been stopped. After acquittal in the criminal case on 6.3.1991, petitioner filed a rep resentation before Joint Secretary. It appears that petitioner had earlier also filed some representation on 4.9.1989. Joint Secretary, Agriculture on 25.10.1991 sent an intimation to Director Agriculture to the effect that decision on the rep resentation of the petitioner dated 4.9.1989 could be taken after decision of the criminal case. That order is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, an other order was passed by Additional Agriculture Director (Administration) on 23.11.1994, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition intimating that a decision had been taken that on the basis of acquittal in the criminal case, ter mination order passed against the petitioner in pursuance of disciplinary pro ceedings could not be set aside (it appears that petitioner had supplied the copy of the acquittal judgment to the authority concerned). Thereafter, petitioner filed another representation on 13.1.1999, true copy of which is in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In the said representation as well as in Para-15 of the writ petition, it was mentioned that several representations were sent however no dates have been mentioned either in Para-15 of the writ petition or in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The representation dated 13.1.1999 was re jected on 6/10.4.2000 by Additional Agriculture Director (Administration), copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It was stated in the said order that matter had already been decided through order dated 19.8, 1994 communicated on 23.11.1994 (i.e., Anneuxre-3 to the writ petition)". The order dated 6/10.4.2000 was communicated to the petitioner through order dated 22.6.2000 by District Agriculture Officer, Mirzapur. Through this writ petition, orders dated 27.4.1984 (termination order), 23.11.1994 (rejecting the representation or der) and 22.6.2000 (communicating the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner) have been challenged.;