JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri A.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Shri Anupam Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging orders dated 7.6.2017 and order dated 28.12.2019 issued by the Tehsildar, Lucknow (Annexure Nos.11 and 12 to the writ petition) with further prayer of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay regular pension to the petitioner, commutation of pension and arrears of pension revised from the date and 7th pay commission with effect from 1.1.2016 with all benefits of services.

3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted appointment on the post of second Clerk on 10.11.1967 in the respondent-Department. He was granted promotion on the Tax Superintendent and thereafter on the post of Assistant Property Officer. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30.4.2008.

Prior to retirement, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.9.1999 on the post of second grade Clerk. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5446 (SS) of 1999 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2000 by giving liberty to the State Government to pass a fresh order. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 6.7.2004 which was challenged in Writ Petition No.3919 (SS) of 2004 wherein by way of interim order, the order of suspension was stayed. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was reinstated in service and joined at Allahabad.

4. Vide order dated 5.7.2006, the petitioner was again placed under suspension by the respondent no.1 and a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner whereupon the petitioner submitted reply to the chargesheet and thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 16.4.2015. The disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice along with the enquiry report to the petitioner to submit reply within a stipulated period. The petitioner submitted reply on 20.4.2015 stating therein that the enquiry officer without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses has proceeded to submit a report. The report submitted by the enquiry officer is not a report by following the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1999'). The disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 7.6.2017 holding the petitioner to be guilty in regard to allotment of certain plots of Lucknow Development Authority other than the rate prescribed for the same.

Thereafter, on initiation of proceeding to recover the amount of the impugned order, citation was sent to the concerned Tehsildar and in pursuance thereof, the Tehsildar passed the impugned orders which are annexed as (Annexures 11 and 12 to the writ petition).

5. Assailing the impugned orders, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Rule 7 of 1999 Rules full fledged procedure has been prescribed to conduct an enquiry in regard to a government servant or against an employee to whom the rule is applicable and the same was not followed by the enquiry officer in conclusion of enquiry. Second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in reply to the show cause notice, specific ground was taken that the enquiry officer has failed to provide opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and the documents relied upon in submitting the report, therefore the order being based thereon is violative of principles of na