By the Court.—Heard Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.K. Chandel, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter-affidavit, supplementary counter-affidavit as well as rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.4.2010 issued by the State Government reducing pension of the petitioner exercising power under Section 351-A of Civil Services Regulations. The petitioner has further prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to recover any amount from the pension of the petitioner, in pursuance of the impugned order.

3. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are :

The petitioner who was working as Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department retired on 31.8.2007. Two days before the superannuation he was placed under suspension on the basis of several allegations. A charge-sheet was issued on 31.8.2007 i.e. on the last day of the retirement of the petitioner levelling three charges against the petitioner.

4. One Hariminder Raj Singh, Principal Secretary (Agriculture) was appointed as an inquiry officer vide order dated 10.12.2007. An inquiry report was submitted on 29.2.2008 exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. The said inquiry report was considered by the State Government and the State Government issued a notice. An order was issued on 15.7.2008 opining that charge No. 1 appears to be fully proved. The copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner requesting him to submit his representation, if any within 15 days. After receiving the show-cause notice dated 15.7.2008 raising various pleas and giving facts, the petitioner disproved the charge No. 1.

5. After receipt of the representation dated 7.8.2008, the State Government did not take any decision in the matter rather issued a letter to the inquiry officer asking the inquiry officer to submit a detailed report with regard to charge No. 1. The State Government requested to the inquiry officer to submit a clear opinion with regard to charge No. 1 and if any evidence is required in this context the same may be obtained from Irrigation Department. The said letter has been filed as Annexure SCA-3 to the supplementary counter-affidavit.

6. The inquiry officer after receipt of the said letter of the Government dated 4.3.2009 submitted another report dated 1.10.2009 again giving finding that charge No. 1 is not proved on the petitioner. The State Government after receiving the report dated 1.10.2009 from the inquiry officer straightway passed the order impugned reducing 30% pension of the petitioner against which order this writ petition has been filed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the impugned order dated 15.4.2010 is based on misconception that charge No. 1 has been found proved by the inquiry officer whereas the inquiry officer in both his reports i.e. inquiry report dated 29.2.2008 and the supplementary inquiry report dated 1.10.2009 has categorically held that charge No. 1 has not been proved. It has been further submitted that after receipt of the supplementary inquiry report, no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner which is in violation of statutory provision of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

8. Shri Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that from the materials on the record, charge was fully proved against the petitioner. He further submits that since the show-cause notice was already issued to the petitioner after receipt of the enquiry report dated 29.2.2008, it was not necessary to issue a notice again to the petitioner subsequent to receipt of the supplementary inquiry report on 1.10.2009.

9. We h