The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendment of pleadings should not be allowed if it seeks to challenge orders at a belated stage, and the amendment should not cause injustice or prejudice to the other party.

( 1 ) THE amendment application has been filed by the petitioner for adding following grounds and the reliefs (B) After ground (c) the following be added as grounds (d) to (k) namely (d) Because there was no material to show, nor was the petitioner responsible for alleged embezzlement. (e) Because the concerned peon and Section Head are responsible for alleged embezzlement. (f) Because the respondents have failed to apply their mind in passing the impugned orders. (g) Because the appellate authority failed to apply its mind and had passed non-speaking discriminatory order. (h) Because the impugned order are against the facts and circumstances of the case and against the law. (i) Because the National Industrial Tribunal failed to consider the violation of Section 33 (2) (b)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (j) Because the respondents are not illegally releasing the amount of provident fund and gratuity to the petitioner. (k) Because the respondents have wrongly ignored the findings recorded by the Court of law in a criminal proceedings in which the petitioner was acquitted against the same charges. (C) After prayer (e) the following be added as prayer (f) and (g) namely (f) to issue writ, order or direction quashing the orders dated 03. 06. 1988, 05. 01. 1989 and 12. 09. 1994 (Annexure 9, 10, and 16 to the writ petition) respectively. (g) In the alternative, suitable writ, order or direction be issued directing the respondents to pay provident fund and gratuity with interest.

( 2 ) BEFORE taking into consideration, the merits of the amendment application, it will be necessary to give certain facts. The writ petition was filed in the year 2000 only to stay the order dated 11. 12. 1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post, which was held by him, with all consequential benefits from 3. 6. 1988 till date. The petitioner was working as a Cashier in Chandausi Branch in the office of Life insurance Corporation of India since 1982. A departmental enquiry was conducted by the respondents and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner was dismissed from service on 3. 6. 1988. A first Information Report was also lodged against the petitioner on the basis of which the case was registered against the petitioner as Criminal Case no. 380 of 1991 (State v. Amod Prakash Gupta ). An appeal against the order of dismissal was filed before the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Central Regional Office, Kanpur, which was also dismissed on 5. 1. 1989. The petitioner against the appellate order had also approached the National Industrial Tribunal at Bombay, which too was dismissed on 12. 9. 1994. The petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court on 22. 9. 1997. It is made clear that the order dated 12. 9. 1994 passed by the National Tribunal has not been challenged by the petitioner in any court. After the acquittal, the petitioner on 17. 6. 1998 had filed a representation to the Senior divisional Manager with a prayer that as the petitioner has been acquitted from the Criminal court, therefore, the petitioner be reinstated in service of the corporation with effect from 21. 6. 1988 by setting a side the order of dismissal. The aforesaid representation dated 22. 9. 1997 was not decided in spite of the reminder sent by the petitioner dated 4. 10. 1998, then the petitioner had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 27321 of 1999 with a simplicitor prayer directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 17. 6. 1998 in the light of the judgment of the Criminal Court dated 22. 9. 1997. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of finally on 9. 7. 1999 with a direction to concerned authority to decide the petitioners representation dated 17. 6. 1998 and 11. 10. 1998, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order in accordance with l