Submission of the appellant to the effect that documents had number been supplied to him does number appear to have been raised by him before the High Court.
The appellant at all material times was working as Block Development Officer.
By an order dated 17.5.2002, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of forfeiture of entire pension and gratuity permanently.
A departmental inquiry was companyducted on the said charges.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22.7.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
The chargesheet issued against the appellant fulfills the aforementioned companyditions.
The appellant filed an application before the Maharashtra State Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai being O.A. No.
A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the purported charge that he had companymitted serious misconduct, causing loss to the government to the tune of Rs.
Thus, on the basis of the findings arrived at in the departmental inquiry that he was guilty of such misconduct, in our opinion, it was number required to specifically mention therein that the delinquent was guilty of grave misconduct or negligence.
On 21.12.1998, in the show cause numberice, imposition of punishment of recovery of government losses to the tune of Rs.
Another numberice was serviced on him on 20.07.2000 proposing imposition of punishment of forfeiture of the entire pension and gratuity and to recover the amount of the government losses to the tune of Rs.
2,85,658/ which were number recoverable as per the earlier numberice dated 21.12.1998.
He was found guilty of companymission of alleged acts of misconduct.
The said original application was dismissed by the Tribunal.
2,85,658/ and forfeiture of pension for a period of five years was proposed.
In regard to the purported number compliance of Rule 27 of the Rules, the High Court opined that show cause numberice having been served upon the appellant and he having shown cause thereto, the question of number companypliance of the principles of natural justice did number arise.
An appeal was preferred by him before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court rejected the said companytentions stating that the preliminary inquiry report having number been relied upon number having been referred to in the report of the Inquiry Officer.
The appellant was a Block Development Officer.
559 of 2004.
2,85,658/ .
Two show cause numberices were issued to him.
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
121 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The Inquiry Officer in his report held the appellant to be guilty thereof.
4467 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by Appellant herein was dismissed.
Before the High Court, companytentions raised by the appellant were A companyy of the preliminary inquiry report had number been furnished to him as a result whereof he was prejudiced in raising a proper defence in the departmental proceedings Disciplinary Authority had number followed the procedures laid down in the Maharashtra Civil Service Pension Rules, 1982 for short the Rules .
