JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal by the writ petitioner, who met with partial success before the learned Single Judge. He wants this Court to allow the writ petition in toto, modifying the judgment of the learned Judge.

2. The petitioner-appellant was a Consolidation Officer. On 9.11.2006, while posted at Agra, he was served with a charge-sheet in relation to certain judicial orders that he had made in the year 2003 at Farrukhabad. The learned Single Judge has quoted the charges in the judgment impugned, but it would be pertinent to reproduce some more details and particulars carried in the charge-sheet dated 9.11.2006, besides just the content of the charges. Charges Nos. 1 and 2, as set out in the charge-sheet, together with the reference to evidence, by which these were sought to be established, are extracted below:

^^vkjksi la[;k&1

vkius xzke ekS/kk tuin Q#Z[kkckn ds okn la[;k&592 /kkjk 9v esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 28&02&03 }kjk xzke ekS/kk ds xkVk la[;k&1285@0&60@1420@2&00 ls xzke lHkk dk uke [kkfjt djds vukj flag iq= ij’kqjke dk uke ntZ fd;kA rnksijkUr fu;e 109 ds vUrxZr okn la[;k&198 rkjh[k QSlyk 18&10&03 esa ikfjr vkns’kkuqlkj mDr vkns’k dk veynjken djk fn;kA ftlls xzke lHkk lEifRr dks viw.khZ; {kfr o Jh vukj flag iq= ij’kqjke dks vuqfpr ykHk ig¡qpk] ftlds fy;s vki nks”kh gS rFkk bl d`R; ls vkidh lR;fu”Bk lafnX/k gksrh gSA

mDr vkjksi dh iqf”V esa fuEu lk{; iBuh; gSA

1& xzke ekS/kk okn la[;k&592 vUrxZr /kkjk&9v fnukad 28&02&03A

2& xzke ekS/kk eqdnek uaŒ&198@2003 fu;e 109 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 18&10&03

3& cUnkscLrvf/kdkjh pdcUnh Q#Z[kkckn dk i=kad 486@foΠdkΠfnΠ17&06&06

vkjksi la[;k&2

xzke fcढS+y ds okn la[;k&1405 vUrxZr /kkjk&9d rkŒ QSŒ 02&04&98 }kjk xzke lHkk ds xkVk la[;k&374@0-70] 424@0-36] 426@0-67 dqy 1-73 ,dM+ ls uke [kkfjt djds Jh nsosUnz dqekj feJk] pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk Jh Qs# flag iq= tkSgjh uke ntZ djus dk vfu;fer vkns’k ikfjr fd;k FkkA vkius okn la[;k&191 vUrxZr /kkjk&109 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 28&10&03 }kjk veynjken djk fd;kA ftlls xzke lHkk dks viw.khZ; {kfr gqbZ rFkk O;fDr fo’ks”k dks vuqfpr YkkHk igq¡pkA ftlds fy;s vki nks”kh gSA rFkk bl d`R; ls vkidh lR;fu”Bk lafnX/k gksrh gSA^^

mDr vkjksi dh iqf”V esa fuEu lk{; iBuh; gSA

1& xzke fcढS+y okn la[;k&191 fu;e 101 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 28&10&03A

2& cUnkscLrvf/kdkjh pdcUnh Q#Z[kkckn dk i=kad &486@foΠdkΠfnΠ17&06&06^^

a

3. It is the petitioner-appellant's case that after service of the charge-sheet, he was neither provided documents that he demanded nor any oral evidence recorded on behalf of the establishment by examining witnesses. The petitioner-appellant too was not examined and the inquiry report was submitted ex parte on 9.8.2007 by the Inquiry Officer, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Etawah to the Disciplinary Authority, the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow.

4. A show-cause notice was issued on 9.10.2007 by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner-appellant asking him to show-cause that the charges being proved, why major penalty should not be imposed upon him. A time period of 15 days was granted to answer the show-cause notice. On 15.11.2007, the petitioner-appellant filed a detailed reply to the show-cause, asserting that both the charges against him were not established.

5. The petitioner-appellant superannuated while posted at Rampur on 30.4.2008 and retired from service. On the 9th of July, 2008 after retirement, the petitioner-appellant was served with another show-cause notice based on the existing inquiry report, requiring him to answer why the penalty of 50% reduction of pension and 50% deduction of gratuity be not awarded. The reply was again demanded within 15 days. The petitioner-appellant submitted a reply dated 29.7.2008, disputing the truth of the charges as well as the fact that these were proved.

6. The respondents proceeded to punish the appellant by means of an order dated 3.8.2012, by which it was ordered that there would be a 10% of permanent reduction in pension payable and 50% deduction, each from the pension and