- (1.) HEARD learned Coun sel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition was initially filed challenging the suspension order, charge-sheet and show-cause notice against the petitioner but subsequently the dismissal order dated 21-4-88 has also been chal lenged. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Secretary cum-General Manager of Janta Bazar, Allahabad. He was a permanent employee of the Co operative Department of the U. P. Govern ment and was formerly functioning as Addl. District Co-operative Officer from where he was sent on deputation to the aforesaid post. It appears that certain misap propriation of the property of the Society came to the knowledge of the petitioner when he was Secretary-cum-General Manager of Janta Bazar Allahabad and hence he filed an FIR against the miscreant, namely Rati Pal who was a Salesman in the Society. True copy of the FIR is annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the petition that Rati Pal has political affilia tion and hence the lodging of the FIR against him by the petitioner was not ap preciated by some persons who were as sociated politically with Rati Pal. As such instead of doing investigation against Rati Pal, they got the petitioner suspended vide suspension order Annexure 3 of the peti tion and FIR was lodged against the petitioner. Against that criminal case, petitioner filed an application under Sec tion 482, Cr PC which has been admitted in this Court as stated in paragraph 5 of the petition and the arrest of the petitioner has been stayed.
(3.) IN paragraph 6 of the petition, it is alleged that thereafter a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, copy of which is Annexure 4 to the petition, to which he sent a reply vide Annexure 5 to the peti tion. A copy of the enquiry report is An nexure 6 to the petition. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure 7 to the petition. There after the impugned dismissal order was passed. It is alleged in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the petition that no action has been taken against the real culprit, i. e. , Rati Pal or his immediate boss Smt. Beena Singh. IN paragraph 13 of the petition, it is stated that petitioner is not the immediate boss of Rati Pal but the immediate boss is Smt. Beena Singh. IN paragraph 14 of the peti tion, it is alleged that the petitioner had no occasion to keep a watch on every move ment of Rati Pal. As such the finding in the enquiry report that if the petitioner would have been careful, then the offence by Rati Pal could not have been committed is per verse and unwarranted by law. In paragraph 19 of the petition, it is stated that in the enquiry report, there is no mention that the petitioner has com mitted any fraud or offence.;