By the Court.—Heard Sri Vijay Dixit, learned counsel for appellants and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from judgment and order dated 5.2.2014 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing appellants’ Writ Petition No. 3156 (SS) of 1988, challenging order of dismissal dated 18.2.1988, on the ground that since Tanveer Husain did not submit any reply to charge-sheet, therefore, he cannot say that no opportunity was given and disciplinary authority was justified in treating charges proved and passing order of punishment.

3. It is also evident from judgment under appeal that petitioner-employee, Tanveer Husain died during pendency of writ petition and substituted by legal heirs, therefore, this writ petition now survive only with respect to consequential benefits, if any, in case punishment order is found vitiated in law and set aside.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of issues raised in this appeal may be narrated as under.

5. Sri Tanveer Husain (original petitioner, now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs, hence would be referred to as the “deceased employee”) working as Senior Assistant in the office of Director, Planning, Research and State Planning Insitute, Kalakankar, House, Lucknow, was served with a charge-sheet dated 31.12.1986 containing allegations relating to year 1978-79 and 1982-83. It requires deceased-employee to show-cause, why a sum of Rs. 6200/- be not recovered from him and regular departmental inquiry be not initiated for misusing his position. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued on 2.1.1987 requiring deceased-employee to show-cause why recovery of Rs. 23,552/- be not made from him.

6. Complaining against Director’s conduct, deceased-employee sent letter dated 22.6.1987 to State Government through Secretary, Planning Department, whereafter deceased-employee received another order dated 24.6.1987 to show-cause why Rs. 6,000/-, advanced to him, be not recovered in single installment.

7. A charge-sheet dated 2.7.1987 was served upon deceased-employee containing nine charges alleging that he submitted wrong report, withdrew excess amount than permitted, obtained advances in violation of rules etc. Charge-sheet was issued by Sri Babu Lal Singh, the then Director, Planning and Research, State Planning Institute himself and we find from record that in respect of some of the charges like Charges No. 1 and 4, Director’s own documents were relied in evidence.

8. Deceased-employee sent a letter dated 16.7.1987 to State Government requesting for change of officer to conduct inquiry alleging that he has already made serious complaints against Director and, therefore has no hope of getting justice from him (Director) particularly when Director himself has issued charge-sheet and conducting inquiry. A reminder was also sent by deceased-employee which is Annexure-7 to the affidavit accompanying stay application, in this appeal.

9. Director also lodged a First Information Report against deceased-employee on 4.8.1987 in respect of same allegations which constitute part of charge-sheet dated 2.7.1987.

10. On 19.8.1987 Director placed deceased-employee under suspension. Deceased-employee then again represented to Government vide letter dated 7.12.1987 requesting for change of officer conducting inquiry and take final decision since Director was seriously prejudiced as deceased-employee has repeatedly made complaint against him.

11. Thereafter no oral inquiry was conducted at all and a show-cause notice was issued by Director on 2.1.1988 stating that charges levelled in charge-sheet stand proved since deceased-employee has not denied same by submitting any reply. It also held that oral inquiry was not necessary since charges are based on documents and stand proved. Consequently, Sri Babu Lal Singh, the then Director required deceased-employee to show-cause, why he should not be dismissed from ser