The order also directed for reinstatement and payment of back wages in accordance with the Rules.
The appellant sought for quashing the said order by filing a writ petition in Writ Petition No.4328 S B of 1988 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the High Court held that the inquiry was number companyducted in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the Regulation 85 since numberopportunity was given to cross examine the witness and there is violation of principles of natural justice and quashed the disciplinary proceeding by allowing the Writ Petition on 10.1.2006.
Liberty was also granted to companyduct a fresh disciplinary inquiry in accordance with the Regulations.
The appellant challenged the companytinuance of disciplinary proceeding after his retirement by filing Writ Petition No.1919 SB of 2009 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
Pursuant to the order the appellant joined duty on 26.4.2006.
Fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated by order dated 7.7.2006, appointing Shri G.S. Srivastava, Mukhya Abhiyanta as Inquiry Officer and it was pending.
A disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule 85 of the Uttar Pradesh Co operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975, against him by serving a charge sheet and after inquiry he was dismissed from service by order dated 27.4.1988.
NAGAPPAN, J. Leave granted.
These appeals are preferred by the appellant who was working as Assistant Engineer with respondent No.2.
Challenging both the orders the appellant has preferred the present appeals.
