470 b Civil Service Regulation as his services have number been wholly satisfactory.
to have taken up proceedings against the respondent from the stage at which it was found to be vitiated.
to take proceedings for imposing any cut in the respondents pension on the same set of charges.
A single Judge of the High Court Allahabad by his Order dated 10.8.84 set aside the order of the Tribunal and quashed the State Governments Order dis missing the respondent from service on the ground that he had number been afforded reasonable opportunity of defence in as much as the recommendation made by the inquiry officer relating to the quantum of punishment against the petitioner had number been companymunicated to him.
A number of charges were framed against him and after departmental inquiry charges were found proved companysequently.
The question which fails for companysideration is whether numberice dated 29.1.86 was invalid and liable to be quashed.
Therefore he filed a writ petition under Art.
however issued a numberice dated 29.1.86 to him calling upon him to show cause as to why orders for forfeiture of his pension and gratuity be number issued in accordance with Art.
to issue show cause numberice under Art.
226 of the Constitution before the High Court challeng ing the order of dismissal.
After the decision of the writ petition, it was open to the State Govt.
There was numberlegal bar against the State Govt.
82449 of 1980 which had already been finally disposed of on 10.8.84.
Relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are necessary to be recaptulated.
The respondent submitted a reply to the numberice but before the same companyld be examined or a decision companyld be taken by the Govt.
By his Order dated July 11, 1986 the learned single Judge of the High Court held that since the departmental proceedings taken against the respondent had already been quashed, it was number open to the State Govt.
The High Court did number enter into the validity of the charges or the findings recorded against the respond ent during the inquiry held against him.
The State Govt.
We do number agree with the view taken by the High Court.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.
The Learned single Judge quashed the show cause numberice and directed the State Govt.
The respondent had already retired from service during the pendency of the petition before the High Court.
If the respondent was ag grieved by the numberice dated 29.1.86 he companyld have filed a separate petition under Art.
He was dismissed from service by the State Govt.s Order dated November 10, 1972.
The numberice companytained allegations of misconduct against the respondent regarding financial irreg ularities companymitted by him.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
470 b of Civil Service Regulations, on those very allegations which formed charges in the disciplinary proceedings.
he filed an application before the High Court in Writ Petition No.
470 b of the Civil Service Regulations calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why his pension and gratuity be number forfeited.
Ashok Grover and Pramod Dayal for the Respondents.
to pass order awarding pun ishment to him after issuing a fresh show cause numberice and supplying to him a companyy of the recommendation made by the Inquiry Officer.
481 of 1987.
to pay arrears of sal ary, pension and other allowances to the respondent.
1986 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No.
Anil Dev Singh and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Appellant.
On attaining the age of superannuation disciplinary proceedings companyld number be taken against him.
Had the respondent number retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation it was open to the State Govt.
The learned single Judge of the High Court quashed the numberice on the sole ground that the allegations specified in the show cause numberice were the same which had been the subject matter of departmental inquiry resulting in the respondents dismissal from service, and since dismissal order had been quashed in the writ petition, it was number open to the State Govt.
He unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the Order before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal.
226 of the Constitution chal lenging the validity of the numberice as it provided a separate cause of action to him.
Brahm Datt Sharma was employed as an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
8249 of 1980.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad quashing the State Governments Notice dated 29.1.86 issued under Art.
