JUDGMENT M. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.
1. The petitioner working on the post of District Cane Officer, was suspended by Order dated 14.12.1998 and he was retired on 31.12.1998. The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 28.9.2001 passed by the State Government. By the said order it has been ordered that a sum of Rs. 1,73,630/- shall be deducted from the amount payable to the petitioner and his pension shall be reduced by one third.
2. The services of the petitioner are governed by the rules "UP Cane Gazetted Service Rules, 1979" filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. A charge sheet dated 19th June, 1999 was served upon him. In the said charge-sheet six charges were framed against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and after inquiry it was found that the charges No. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are fully proved. The charge No. 3 was not proved and charge No. 4 was partly proved. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer passed the impugned order.
3. The charges against the petitioner are of serious in nature. It has been found as a fact that the petitioner against the sanctioned strength of 259 Clerks had given promotion to 70 persons treating the sanctioned strength as "595" and thus, he caused financial loss to the Cooperative Society. It has also been found that the petitioner has given appointment to various persons on the post of Clerk on his own whim and has not obtained any order from the higher authorities. It was also found that the petitioner granted promotion to 70 persons out of turn without any basis and the promotion order issued by the petitioner was arbitrary. The disciplinary authority has found that due to arbitrary and illegal action of the petitioner, the Societies which were already facing great financial crises, additional burden on account of action of the petitioner has been placed upon them. The petitioner should have taken into account the bad financial condition of the society before passing promotion orders.
4. We have considered the inquiry report as well as the impugned order. The impugned order is based upon the relevant considerations and it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. The finding of guilt is a finding of fact, which cannot ordinarily be interfered with by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner could not point out any material on which it can be said that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is arbitrary or illegal. The disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order has taken into account that the petitioner has already retired and except subsistence allowance no other amount was paid to him. He has further ordered that period of suspension shall be treated as period in service. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
5. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.