It appears from another report of the Tehsildar that the Sub Divisional Officer directed him to prepare a chargesbeet.
It has been found by the Inquiry Officer as also by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Appellate Authority that the revenue stamps which were affixed to the pay bills, had been pulled off and in some places parts of the signature of the respondent No.
3 were there.
3, Shri Banwari Lal, Secretary, and some other employees of the Town Area Committee for the aforesaid months, In other words, the appellant was charged with embezzlement.
The writ petition preferred by the appellant against the impugned order of termination was, as stated earlier, dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.
The appellant was suspended on November 13, 1977.
It was alleged that by encashing cheques issued to him, the appellant had withdrawn from the Bank certain amounts in the months of April to September, 1975 on account of pay and wages, but he did number make payment to the respondent No.
3 for the aforesaid months and, accordingly, terminated his services with immediate effect.
Against the said order of the Sub Divisional Officer, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Agra Division, who, however, by his order dated February 21, 1985 dismissed the appeal.
In this companynection, it may be stated that during the pendency of the inquiry proceedings against the appellant, the respondent No.
The appellant was appointed the Waterworks Supervisor of Town Area Committee, Sadabad, District Mathura.
3 for the aforesaid months was proved.
The Tehsildar, who made an inquiry, found that the charge of embezzlement of the amount of pay of the respondent No.
After the appellant was suspended on November 13, 1977, an inquiry was held by the Tehsildar in regard to charges which were that he was number making bills for waterworks, number making a list of defaulters, number taking charge, number giving missing number of companynections and number obeying orders.
3 have admitted in writing that they had received their pay.
The Sub Divisional Officer, who is the prescribed authority, by the impugned order dated May 5, 1981 agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the appellant had number paid the amount of the salary of the respondent No.
It has also been admitted by him that the pay of these employees was disturbed by the appellant.
The appellant remained under suspension throughout.
3 or by any employee of number payment of salary or wages by the appellant.
He, however, found that the other employees had, in fact, received their wages.
It is curious that the respondent No.
He, however, reported that in view of the earlier report, it would number be proper to prepare the chargesheet.
An inquiry was made by the Tehsildar who in his report dated February 4, 1978 found that the appellant was number guilty of the charges levelled against him and that, accordingly, he should be reinstated in service with back wages.
On June 13, 1977, the Town Area Committee was superseded and the Sub Divisional Officer was appointed the prescribed authority.
It is number admitted by the Sub Divisional Officer in his companynter affidavit affirmed on April 21, 1986 that all the companycerned persons except the respondent No.
3 lodged a FIR with the police alleging that an offence under Section 409 1PC had been companymitted by the appellant.
The Sub Divisional Officer directed the Tehsildar to reconsider his report on certain points and to submit a fresh report by September 15, 1979.
On June 15, 1978, a chargesheet was served upon the appellant companytaining 5 charges against him.
3 remained silent and did number make any companyplaint till July 15, 1980 when he lodged a FIR with the police.
Murari Mohan Dutt, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant whereby he challenged the orders of termination of his service.
