RAJIV SHARMA, SATISH CHANDRA
M. M. SIDDIQUI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent
By the Court.—Heard Sri Kshemendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Z. Zilani, learned Additional Advocate General, for the opposite parties.
2. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the validity and correctness of the order dated 30.3.2001 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow (opposite party No. 1) contained in Annexure1 to the writ petition, whereby petitioner was found guilty for misappropriation of funds and a direction has been issued to recover a sum of Rs. 50,82,266/- from the gratuity and pension of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 9 (1) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961.
3. Shorn off unnecessary details the facts of the case are as under :
In the year 1955, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer and on account of his outstanding services, he was promoted to the post of Consolidation Officer in the year 1961. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation in the year 1979 and to the post of the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the year 1987. La
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.