Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed above noted writ petition, praying for quashing of the impugned punishment order dated 17.8.2015, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Managing Director, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited, KESA House, Kanpur and the appellate order dated 16.5.2016, passed by the Board of Directors of the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited, KESA House, Kanpur. Further direction has been sought against the respondents to pay the unpaid subsistence allowance w.e.f., 13.12.2008 i.e. for a period exceeding ninety days equal to three fourths of such basic wage, dearness allowance and other compensatory allowances.

3. The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Coolie in Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited, KESA House, Kanpur and later he was promoted as Sub Station Operator, which is also a Class-IV post. He was served show-cause notice dated 1.9.2008 proposing to remove him from service on the ground that he got employment showing his name as Santosh, son of Dulare, whereas his name is Ashok Kumar. This show-cause notice was not preceded by any charge-sheet or departmental enquiry and by the order dated 7.10.2010, he was removed from service. Against the removal order, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by means of C.M.W.P. No. 57455 of 2008, which was allowed by the following order,

“Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mridul Tripathi for the respondent.

The petitioner was appointed as a workman in 1990 with the respondent establishment and by passage of time, he was promoted and at present he is working as S.S.O. Bhalroghat with the respondent. On the basis of an enquiry conducted bythe vigilance the services of the petitioner has been terminated by the impugned order but without holding any domestic enquiry.

Learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute this factual position and states that they may be permitted to hold the domestic enquiry in accordance with law and no counter-affidavit is required at this stage.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.10.2008 is hereby quashed.

However, it would be open to the respondents to conduct a domestic enquiry against the petitioner in accordance to law.

Dt.12.11.2008.”

4. After the order aforesaid, a charge-sheet dated 21.1.2009 was served on the petitioner to which he replied on 6.2.2009. Three dates, 19.2.2009, 25.2.2009 and 5.3.2009 were fixed when the petitioner could not appear before the Enquiry Committee. On 23.3.2009, the Enquiry Committee was reconstituted because of transfer of one member of the enquiry committee. On 25.3.2009, the department sought adjournment. On 6.2.2009, the petitioner requested for providing him a defence representative and his prayer was rejected on 1.4.2009. The petitioner made an application for deferring the enquiry proceedings since Criminal Case was also proceeding against him on the same charge, but the request was turned down by the Enquiry Committee on 5.5.2009. On 6.5.2009, the statement of the petitioner was recorded before the Enquiry Committee and thereafter, the enquiry proceedings were closed and on 19.5.2009, the enquiry committee submitted its report. On 31.8.2009, second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner alongwith enquiry report and on 14.9.2009, the petitioner submitted its reply. Thereafter, petitioner sought further documents shown as enclosures to the said enquiry report which were supplied to him on 13.11.2009 and the petitioner submitted his Supplementary Reply on 16.11.2009. The impugned punishment order dated 17.8.2015 was passed against the petitioner dismissing him from service. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal on 5.10.2015, which was dismissed by the order dated 16.5.2016. Hence the petitioner has filed thi