A.F.R.

1. Heard Sri D.K. Singh along with Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional CSC for the respondent – State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed on following prayer(s):

“a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impagned order of dismissal dated 22.2.2001, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

b) to issue a srit, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits and in case the petitioner retires during the pendency of the writ petition, then the post retiral benefits of the petitioner may also be released alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

c) to issue a writ, order or direction deemed just and proper in favour of the petitioner, in the circumstances of the instant case.

d) to allow the writ petition with costs.”

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a member of the Subordinate Agriculture Service, Class-III, on 22.07.1968 by the Joint Director of Agriculture (Administration), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, in the pay scale of ₹120–220. As reflected in his service book, the petitioner was working under the District Agriculture Officer, Gonda, as Project Officer, Gonda, with effect from 01.10.1981.

2. On 13.07.1990, Ram Vinod Rai, Additional District Agriculture Officer, was appointed to verify the petitioner's seed store. Thereafter, on 15.09.1990, the petitioner was allegedly directed to hand over charge to Sri Om Prakash Srivastava. However, in the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner denied having received any such order and asserted that the charge was handed over to Sri Srivastava only after 17.10.1990, that too incompletely, as Sri Srivastava proceeded on leave immediately after partially taking over the charge.

3. On 10.01.1991, the District Magistrate, Gonda, directed that the godown tobe sealed. Subsequently, on 24.01.1991, the godown was reopened in the presence of a Magistrate and the charge was handed over to the new in- charge. During the process, an inventory was prepared, allegedly revealing a shortage of Government stock valued at ₹1,55,043.47. The petitioner, however, asserted that he had already informed the District Agriculture Officer that the stock in the new godown had not been accounted for, but no action was taken on his communication and a fictitious shortage was subsequently attributed to him.

4. The departmental authorities allegedly conducted a preliminary inquiry on 09.01.1991 through the District Agriculture Officer, Gonda, namely, Ram Prasad Shukla and reported the alleged loss to the higher authorities. The petitioner disputed the genuineness of the said report, contending that it could not have been prepared on 09.01.1991 when the godown was sealed only on 10.01.1991 and reopened on 24.01.1991. On 24.02.1991, an FIR was registered as Crime No.37 of 1991 under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner alleged that the criminal case had been instituted with a mala fide intention.

5. On 04.07.1991, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Extension), Gonda, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The suspension and appointment of the Inquiry Officer were referred to in the departmental proceedings and were not disputed by the petitioner. According to the service book, the petitioner remained on medical leave from 10.03.1991 to 03.07.1991.

6. On 13.08.1991, a charge-sheet was issued by the Inquiry Officer and was dispatched to the petitioner's residential address on 20.08.1991. However, the same was returned undelivered on 29.08.1991 with the remark that the petitioner had gone out for medical treatment. The petitioner subsequently approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6065 (S/S) of 1991, in which an interim order staying the suspension order was passed on 18