- (1.) Counsel for the petitioner states that for the allegations contained in charge sheet (ann.1) dated 30.8.80, the petitioner was also prosecuted in criminal court for the offence under Section 409, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 277/94 and was so acquitted by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad vide order dated 11.3.99. Relying on the judgment in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, 1999(3) SCC 679, he states that the punishment awarded to him on the charge sheet is to be quashed.
(2.) The petitioner was charge sheeted in regard to non-accounting of the amount of Rs. 113.19; 309; 63.21; 1200.00; 32.50; 206.00; 15000.00 on the allegation that even though receipts were duly issued by the petitioner but the amount was not deposited by the petition- while he was working as Patwari. The FIR in this regard was also simultaneously recorded for the offences as mentioned above. After enquiry the petitioner was issued show casue notice (ann.4) of dismissal from service and ultimately the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 12.11.86 (ann.6). The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 22.8.88 (ann.8). Even the review application was also dismissed vide order dated 21.4.90 .(ann.10).
(3.) The petitioner had challenged the impugned orders in this writ petition. Even though number of grounds have been taken in writ petition, but counsel for petitioner states that because of decision of criminal court on the same charges based on same evidence and same witnesses, as based in departmental enquiry, the criminal court has acquitted the petitioner of the charges of misappropriation as having not been proved.;