- (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel in support of the. petition, Sri V.P. Varshney learned counsel appearing for the Commission and Dr. D.K. Tiwari, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) This writ petition impugns the order dated 02 February 2018 passed by the State Government forfeiting the retiral benefits of the petitioner to the extent of loss caused to the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Regulation 351B of the Civil Services Regulations as applicable in the State of U.P [hereinafter referred to as "the CSR"]. The order further retains the gratuity and leave encashment benefits liable to be disbursed in favour of the petitioner to recover the alleged pecuniary loss caused to the State Government. The petition seeks consequential reliefs for release of the entire pensionary benefits, gratuity and leave encashment. A further direction is sought commanding the respondents to release the arrears of salary and the subsistence allowance for the period 04 December 1999 to 29 May 2003 as also for the period 12 December 2007 to 31 December 2010.
(3.) The facts that may be noticed and would be relevant for a decision being rendered on this writ petition are as follows. The petition was originally appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department of the State. On 02 July 1982 he was promoted as an Executive Engineer. It was while functioning as such that the State Government passed an order of dismissal on 04 July 2010 and further directed recoveries to be effected from the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner. This decision of the State Government was assailed by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No. 8299 of 2010. The said petition was allowed by a Division Bench of the Court in the following terms: - "After going through the record, we are satisfied that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with U.P. Government Servant (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1999. The enquiry officer did not fix any dates, to examine the material and witnesses in support of charges to establish the guilt. No witness was examined to prove the charges. His assessment on each of the charge was only based on his own inspections and his own satisfaction without recording any reason or reasoning for the same. Absolutely no reasons have been given in finding that the charges were proved. The charges in the main and supplementary charge sheet have been mixed up to compound the amount of embezzlement. Inspite of the advice given by UPPSC to fix accountability the enquiry officer, alleged to be a rival of the petitioner for promotion, the disciplinary authority insisted upon recovering the entire amount from the petitioner. The petitioner's detailed reply to the charges was not considered at all. In the circumstances, we set aside the order dated 4.1.2010 passed by the State Government (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) and direct that the authorities will conduct fresh enquiry from the stage of serving/supply of charge sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner will have opportunity to submit reply to the charge sheet including to the allegations that he has taken away most of the records. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the enquiry, and not to seek any unnecessary adjournment. The departmental enquiry may be concluded within a period of six months. We do not propose to pass any order with regard to reinstatement of the petitioner and his reinstatement and back wages shall be subject to the result of the enquiry. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions/observations." ;