Whereas, after companysidering the report of the inquiry officer the involvement of Shri R.K. Zalpur, Senior Assistant, has been established in the embezzlement of Government money as indicated above in the office of Resident Commissioner, JK, New Delhi.
It reads as under The appellants filed detailed reply to the maintainability of the said writ petition.
After the report was submitted, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause numberice on 4th June, 1999, whereby it had proposed to terminate the services of the employee.
Assistant in terms of clause viii of rule 30 of the JK Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1956 which provides dismissal from service.
After the said order was passed, the first respondent did number prefer any departmental appeal number did he approach any superior authority for redressal of his grievance.
The order passed by the State Government dismissing the employee read as follows Whereas the companymissioner of Inquiries has submitted his report to the Government and has found him guilty of having embezzled Government money to the tune of Rs.2,68,317.00 Rupees two lacs, sixty eight thousand, three hundred and seventeen only besides being responsible for financial mis companyduct and companyplete lack of devotion to duties.
Whereas, Shri R.K. Zalpuri was informed about the decision of the Government vide companymunication No.
The Division Bench dealing with the said submission opined thus Learned Single Judge has quashed Respondents dismissal from Government service on the ground that companyy of the proceedings prepared under Rule 33 was number supplied to the Respondent before passing final orders on the provisional companyclusion reached at on the basis of the inquiry to show cause as to why the proposed penalty be number imposed on him.
The first respondent submitted the reply and the Disciplinary Authority companysidering the explanation passed an order of dismissal on 6th September, 1999 and he stood dismissed from that day.
The principal order and the order passed in the review are the subject matters of assail in the present appeals.
The Division Bench companysidered the application for review and ultimately dismissed the same on the ground that there was numberpalpable error warranting review of the order.
The Disciplinary Authority companysidering the denial of charges, on 12th November, 1996, appointed an Inquiry Officer, who after companyducting the enquiry, submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority which companytained a finding that the employee had misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,68,317.00.
On that singular ground, he allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of dismissal.
Whereas after accepting the report of the inquiry officer and after establishing his involvement, the Government has decided to take action against Shri R.K. Zalpuri, Sr.
However, on 18th February, 2006, he filed a writ petition S.W.P. No.352 of 2006 before the High Court challenging his dismissal from service.
Whereas Shri R.K. Zalpuri has furnished his reply to the numberice served upon him, which has been companysidered by the Government and numbermerit was found in he same Now, therefore, Shri R.K. Zalpur, Senior Assistant, in the office of the Resident Commissioner, JK, New Delhi is hereby dismissed from Government service with immediate effect in terms of clause VIII of Rule 30 of JK Civil Service CCA Rules, 1956.
Dipak Misra, J. The first respondent was served with a Memorandum of Charges on 16th September, 1996, which was unequivocally refuted by him.
Being grieved by the aforesaid decision, the State Government preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.102 of 2012.
