Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—The petitioner Mativar Singh, was punished vide order dated 27.4.2001 pursuant to the departmental enquiry initiated after eleven years, for theft of official vehicle (jeep) allotted to him in his official capacity.

2. Brief facts leading to the present writ petition are that one official vehicle No. UMV 2687 was allotted to the petitioner in his official capacity of Sub-divisional Agriculture Extension Officer, Azamgarh with official driver. Since there was no ‘Garage’ in the campus of office, the driver used to park the said vehicle in front of office. An office clerk namely Sri Bhairo Prasad and a Chowkidar Sri Chandrabali Yadav as well as the jeep driver Bhuneshwar Kant used to reside in office. Keys of the said jeep were kept by the Jeep Driver Bhuneshwar Kant.

3. The petitioner contends that he fell sick during official tour on 23.3.1989, therefore, he went on leave for 24.3.1988 with oral permission of Deputy Director of Agriculture. The said official vehicle was stolen during the night of 24/25-03-1988 when petitioner was neither present in the office nor at his residence situate at Lalganj Bazar, Azamgarh as he had gone out to Varanasi for treatment. But Senior Clerk Bhairo Prasad, Driver of the jeep Bhuvneshwar Kant and Chowkidar Chandrabali Yadav were present in the office campus and that the Chowkidar was specifically responsible for guarding the office campus and its properties including stolen vehicle (jeep). A report was lodged at Police Station Lalganj, Azamgarh. As the Investigating Officer failed to decipher the case, the Circle Officer, Lalganj entrusted the investigation to another police Officer. Even the new Investigating Officer could not succeed in either recovering the said stolen vehicle or tracing the thief. Ultimately, the investigation was closed and the final report was submitted.

4. Department did not initiate any action against the petitioner but his rating of ‘good’ in annual remark by a reporting and reviewing authority was rejected by accepting authority downgrading the petitioner as ‘bad’ officer for the loss of the official vehicle. Petitioner’s representation against this drop in rating was rejected by the Government, therefore, he filed the aforesaid claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow which was allowed on 2.8.2000 directing deletion of the adverse rating from the Character Roll of the petitioner.

5. Suddenly, after eleven years of theft of the said vehicle, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner in March, 1999 blaming him for carelessness resulting into the theft of jeep. The petitioner submitted his reply denying any liability for theft of the official vehicle. He also denied that he left the station on 23.3.1988 without prior permission. Similarly, he denied the third allegations that the ‘Garage’ was not constructed due to his carelessness.

6. Enquiry report was later on submitted holding the delinquent employee guilty of all the charges and after issuing a show-cause notice with prior consultation with Uttar Pradesh Public Services Commission the punishment order dated 27.4.2001 detailed above was passed after the retirement of petitioner/delinquent employee on 31.12.2000 directing a deduction of Rs. 64,845/- in single instalment from the gratuity of the Government employee/petitioner. But as the petitioner had already received his retiral dues on his retirement, he was asked to deposit the aforesaid amount into the State Treasury.

7. Heard Sri P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the disciplinary proceedings primarily on four counts (i) first being that he was not provided documents as mentioned in the charge-sheet having repeatedly asked for the same; (ii) no oral evidence was adduced, therefore, he could not get opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and produce his own evidence; and (iii) some other employees were e