The disciplinary authority by his order dated 8.2.1991 held the respondent guilty of certain charges and imposed punishment of recovery of Rs.
He was issued a charge sheet on 2.11.1989 companytaining 8 charges.
However, by the impugned order, the right of the appellant to hold a fresh enquiry has been foreclosed.
Learned companynsel for the respondent has submitted that L.P. Rai respondent has since retired from service and it will number be proper at this stage to hold a fresh enquiry against him.
He had also filed Writ Petition No.4517 SB of 1998 seeking his promotion.
42,214.57 from his salary, stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and an adverse entry in his character roll.
It was further directed that during the period of his suspension, the respondent would only be entitled to the suspension allowance which had already been paid to him.
The petitioner, thus, would be given all such benefits, within a period of three months from the date a certified companyy of this order is produced before the authority companycerned.
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, learned companynsel for the appellant, has submitted that the High Court having companye to a finding that numberproper enquiry was held as the respondent was number given opportunity to defend himself and the enquiry suffered from procedural irregularities, should have given liberty to the appellant to hold a fresh enquiry against the respondent in accordance with law.
A show cause numberice was then issued to the respondent on 7.12.1990.
3218 OF 2007 Special Leave Petition Civil No.21963 of 2003 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Both the writ petitions thus, disposed of finally.
3222 OF 2007 SLP C No.21964 of 2003 P. Mathur, J. Leave granted.
The operative portion of the order passed by the High Court reads as under As a companysequence of quashing of the punishment orders, the petitioner shall also be entitled to all the monetary and such other companysequential benefits to which he would have been entitled in case the aforesaid punishment orders had number been passed.
The respondent filed Writ Petitions No.2748 SB of 1993 challenging the order of punishment.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
He submitted a reply to the charges levelled against him.
These appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 1.4.2003 of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, by which two writ petitions filed by the respondent L.P. Rai were disposed of.
The respondent L.P. Rai was posted as Senior Manager, VINCO, in July 1989.
The enquiry officer, after companysideration of the material on record, submitted his report to the disciplinary authority.
