Hon’ble Irshad Ali, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rajesh Mishra and Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 12.1.2016 and 29.1.2016 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. State Warehousing Corporation. vide order dated 12.1.2016, penalty of recovery of Rs. 521220.59/- was imposed upon the petitioner and vide order dated 29.1.2016, the petitioner was dismissed from the service and recovery of Rs. 2795665.23/- has been directed.

3. The petitioner was granted appointment in the Warehousing Corporation on the post of Godown In-charge in the year 1979 at District Bereilly. Subsequently, he was posted as Warehouse Superintendent Warehouse Central Nagla in District Bareilly. The petitioner was issued chargesheet on 10.8.2015 by the Inquiry Officer levelling charges that while posting at Jamka, District Shahjahanpur in the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, shortfall of rice occurred. Thereafter another chargesheet was issued no 17.11.2014.

4. The chargesheet dated 10.8.2015 was in regard to the shortfall of foodgrains while posted at Center Bari Nagla and the chargesheet dated 17.11.2014 was issued in regard to the shortfall of foodgrains at Center Jamka in District Shahjahanpur.

5. The petitioner submitted reply to the charges levelled against him on 2.12.2014 and after conclusion of inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted its report on 9.12.2014 and the charges were found proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority issued show-cause notice vide letter dated 20.12.2014 enclosing copy of the inquiry report directing the petitioner to submit his reply on 29.12.2014. The proceedings referred hereinabove were concluded in regard to the chargesheet dated 17.11.2014.

6. In regard to the chargesheet dated 10.8.2015, the petitioner submitted his reply on 24.8.2015 and thereafter the inquiry officer submitted its report on 31.10.2015. The managing director issued show-cause notice dated 26.11.2015 and 4.1.2016 calling explanation from the petitioner within 15 days of receipt of the show-cause notice that why Rs. 521220.95/- and Rs. 2795665.23/- may not be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner in response thereto, submitted his reply on 4.12.2015 and 18.1.2016 respectively denying the charges levelled against him.

7. The managing director after considering the inquiry reports and replies submitted by the petitioner passed orders on 12.1.2016 and 29.1.2016 by means of which, services of the petitioner have been dismissed and order of recovery of Rs. 2795665.23/- has been issued against the petitioner.

8. Challenging the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner has made four submissions: (1) The Government order dated 16.8.2003 which has been relied upon by the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned orders has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, reliance placed by the managing director on G.O. dated 16.8.2003 while passing the impugned order is not justifiable in law; (2) In response to the chargesheet, reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the managing director while passing the impugned order; (3) the shortage occurred in the godown of foodgrains was due to moisture and not due to negligence of the petitioner. The godown was not fit for storage of foodgrains; and (4) the last argument advanced by the petitioner is that after setting aside the Government Order dated 16.8.2003 till the date of passing of impugned orders, fresh norms have not come into force. The inquiry proceedings and imugned orders due to non consideration of aforesaid aspects are not tenable in law.

9. While making the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the inquiry officer did not fix date, time and place for conducting the inquiry. As such, the petitioner could not cross-examine the witnesses relied upon or adduce evidence in rebuttal to the docu