# Divakar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 584
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-24
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 6585 of 2021
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/divakar-dwivedi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49978
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Service Law - House Rent Allowance -
A judicial officer who is not provided
residential accommodation is obliged to
go in for rented accommodation. In view
of the prevailing rate of rent, the smallest
accommodation that can be taken may
often cost 75 per cent to 100 per cent of
the monthly salary, a situation which
cannot be countenanced by any logic. It is
absolutely
necessary
that
appropriate
conditions should be provided for the
judicial
officer
and
he
should
have
reasonable mental peace in order that he
may perform his duties satisfactorily.
Rendering justice is a difficult job. It is actually a
divine act. Unless the judicial officer has a
reasonably worry free mental condition, it would
be difficult to expect unsoiled justice from his
hands. (Para 16)

Provision of an official residence for every
Judicial
Officer
should
be
made
mandatory. A Judicial Officer to work in a
manner expected of him has to free himself
from undue obligations of others, particularly
owners of buildings within his jurisdiction who
ordinarily may have litigation before him. This is
mostly the case in rural areas where outstation
judicial courts are located. (Para 16)

Supreme
Court
has
directed
that
until
adequate government accommodation is
available, it should be the obligation of the
State at the instance of the High Court to
provide
requisite
accommodation
for
every judicial officer. (Para 17)

B. As per GO dated 27 July 2006, in case of
non-availability
of
government
accommodation, the concerned judicial
officer may himself/herself arrange for an
accommodation on rent, in accordance
with law, stature/class of the post held by
him/her. The difference of money beyond
the prescribed H.R.A. shall be borne by the
State Government. It is further stated that
issuance of Rent Justification Certificate is for
4 All. Divakar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
585
non-residential buildings and not for residential
houses/accommodations. (Para 11)

The conduct and approach of the Staterespondents in withholding the rent and
compelling the judicial officer from repeatedly
approaching
the
district
authorities
for
accommodation
not
only
tantamounts
to
harassment, but also makes a serious dent upon
the constitutional principle of separation of
powers between the executive and judiciary.
(Para 12)

C. Shetty Commission Report dated 11
November 1999, while dealing with house
rent allowance and other related issues
observed that housing is a basic need,
next only to food and clothing. (Para 16)

D. The State Government vide GO dated 5
October 2020, issued directions to all the
District
Magistrates
w.r.t.
allotment
of
government
accommodation
to
the
judicial officer by granting them first
preference
as
against
the
Executive
Officers/Magistrates. (Para 18)

Accordingly, as per GO dated 27 July 2006,
petitioner is entitled to actual rent of the rented
accommodation. In any case, by the subsequent
GO dated 5 October 2020, a judicial officer
posted at Allahabad (Prayagraj) is entitled to
minimum Rs. 20,000/-over and above the
admissible H.R.A. or 18 percent of his
basic/level of pay whichever is higher. The
arrears claimed by the petitioner would also be
covered by the subsequent Government Order.
The case of the petitioner, however, is covered
by the earlier GO dated 27 July 2006, i.e., actual
rent of the rented accommodation minus the
H.R.A. (Para 19)

Writ petition allowed. Rent Justification
Certificate is set aside and quashed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

All India Judges Association Vs U.O.I. (2002) 4
SCC 247 (Para 11)

Present petition challenges the Rent
Justification Certificate (of the flat rented
by the petitioner) dated 21.06.2019,
issued by fifth respondent (Additional
District
Magistrate
(Civil
Supply),
Prayagraj,
at
Rs.
6,820/-arbitrarily
treating the rate of rent at Rs. 10 per
square feet.

## Text

584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
discussion available with regard to the
competency of the respondent no. 3 while
determining the loss which has been
attributed to the petitioner and as such, the
same is liable to be set aside.

20. The instant matter is hereby
decided
without
calling
the
counter
affidavit from the respondents since the
action of the responding authorities are
contrary to the settled provisions of the
U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 which has
been broadly discussed in the judgment
dated 16.12.2022 passed in Writ C No.
28230 of 2022 (Dinesh Kumar And 4
Others versus State of U.P. And 3 Others)
and after footing the action of the
respondents in the litmus of the judgment
as mentioned above, the same seems to be
illegal.

21. In the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, the orders dated 29.08.2022
and 06.03.2023 passed by the respondent
nos. 3 and 2 respectively is hereby quashed
and set aside.

22. The writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 584
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Writ-A No. 6585 of 2021

Divakar Dwivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Indra Raj Singh, Sri Adarsh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - House Rent Allowance -
A judicial officer who is not provided
residential accommodation is obliged to
go in for rented accommodation. In view
of the prevailing rate of rent, the smallest
accommodation that can be taken may
often cost 75 per cent to 100 per cent of
the monthly salary, a situation which
cannot be countenanced by any logic. It is
absolutely
necessary
that
appropriate
conditions should be provided for the
judicial
officer
and
he
should
have
reasonable mental peace in order that he
may perform his duties satisfactorily.
Rendering justice is a difficult job. It is actually a
divine act. Unless the judicial officer has a
reasonably worry free mental condition, it would
be difficult to expect unsoiled justice from his
hands. (Para 16)

Provision of an official residence for every
Judicial
Officer
should
be
made
mandatory. A Judicial Officer to work in a
manner expected of him has to free himself
from undue obligations of others, particularly
owners of buildings within his jurisdiction who
ordinarily may have litigation before him. This is
mostly the case in rural areas where outstation
judicial courts are located. (Para 16)

Supreme
Court
has
directed
that
until
adequate government accommodation is
available, it should be the obligation of the
State at the instance of the High Court to
provide
requisite
accommodation
for
every judicial officer. (Para 17)

B. As per GO dated 27 July 2006, in case of
non-availability
of
government
accommodation, the concerned judicial
officer may himself/herself arrange for an
accommodation on rent, in accordance
with law, stature/class of the post held by
him/her. The difference of money beyond
the prescribed H.R.A. shall be borne by the
State Government. It is further stated that
issuance of Rent Justification Certificate is for
4 All. Divakar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
585
non-residential buildings and not for residential
houses/accommodations. (Para 11)

The conduct and approach of the Staterespondents in withholding the rent and
compelling the judicial officer from repeatedly
approaching
the
district
authorities
for
accommodation
not
only
tantamounts
to
harassment, but also makes a serious dent upon
the constitutional principle of separation of
powers between the executive and judiciary.
(Para 12)

C. Shetty Commission Report dated 11
November 1999, while dealing with house
rent allowance and other related issues
observed that housing is a basic need,
next only to food and clothing. (Para 16)

D. The State Government vide GO dated 5
October 2020, issued directions to all the
District
Magistrates
w.r.t.
allotment
of
government
accommodation
to
the
judicial officer by granting them first
preference
as
against
the
Executive
Officers/Magistrates. (Para 18)

Accordingly, as per GO dated 27 July 2006,
petitioner is entitled to actual rent of the rented
accommodation. In any case, by the subsequent
GO dated 5 October 2020, a judicial officer
posted at Allahabad (Prayagraj) is entitled to
minimum Rs. 20,000/-over and above the
admissible H.R.A. or 18 percent of his
basic/level of pay whichever is higher. The
arrears claimed by the petitioner would also be
covered by the subsequent Government Order.
The case of the petitioner, however, is covered
by the earlier GO dated 27 July 2006, i.e., actual
rent of the rented accommodation minus the
H.R.A. (Para 19)

Writ petition allowed. Rent Justification
Certificate is set aside and quashed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

All India Judges Association Vs U.O.I. (2002) 4
SCC 247 (Para 11)

Present petition challenges the Rent
Justification Certificate (of the flat rented
by the petitioner) dated 21.06.2019,
issued by fifth respondent (Additional
District
Magistrate
(Civil
Supply),
Prayagraj,
at
Rs.
6,820/-arbitrarily
treating the rate of rent at Rs. 10 per
square feet.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Adarsh Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Learned
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner is a judicial officer of the
Higher Judicial Services of the rank of
Additional District Judge.

3. On 4 June 2018, petitioner was sent
as
Legal
Advisor
to
the
Excise
Commissioner, U.P. Allahabad (Prayagraj).

4. Petitioner applied to the second
respondent-District Magistrate, Prayagraj,
for allotment of a suitable residential
quarter commensurate to his position, rank
and post. The second respondent vide
communication dated 13 July, 2018,
expressed
his
inability
to
provide
residential government quarter to the
petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner was
compelled to rent a three bedroom
accommodation (flat) at Rs. 26,000/- per
month.

5. The fifth respondent-Additional
District
Magistrate
(Civil
Supply,
Prayagraj), vide communication dated 14
March 2019, directed the petitioner to
obtain Rent Justification Certificate of the
rented flat.

6. Aggrieved, petitioner submitted an
application
against
the
aforenoted
communication, further, an application
dated 26 April 2019, was submitted before
the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar
Pradesh.
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. It appears that a government
quarter being No. 469/4, Park Road
Colony, Prayagraj, was allotted to the
petitioner, but, the earlier allottee refused to
vacate the accommodation which was duly
informed
to
the
respondent
by
the
petitioner. Similar was the case with
government quarter No. 199/4, Mission
Road, Prayagraj, the previous allottee also
declined to vacate the government quarter.
Thereafter, it appears that the
fifth
respondent issued the impugned Rent
Justification Certificate of the flat rented by
the petitioner at Rs. 6,820/- arbitrarily
treating the rate of rent at Rs. 10 per square
feet.

8. It appears that a complaint came to
be filed before the Lokayukt, Uttar
Pradesh, thereafter, government quarter No.
199/4, Mission Road Prayagraj, came to be
allotted to the petitioner in May 2020.

9. Grievance of the petitioner is that
he has not been paid the rent of the flat at
Rs. 26,000/- per month from July 2018 till
15 November 2019, thereafter, enhanced
rent at Rs. 27,300/- from November, 2019
till March 2020, aggregating at Rs.
5,28,850/-. Petitioner was paid at Rs. 9,018
per month towards House Rent Allowance
(HRA), totaling at Rs. 1,89,378/-. In other
words, petitioner had to bear Rs. 3,39,472/-
from his pocket being the arrears of rent of
the
rented
accommodation.
Petitioner
claims refund of the amount.

10. In this backdrop, it is submitted
that petitioner being a Senior Judicial
Officer, was subjected to harassment and
had to suffer monitory loss at the hands of
the State-respondent. The conduct of the
State-respondent is in contravention of the
Government Order dated 27 July, 2006, as
well as, the judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court in All India Judges
Association Vs. Union of India1, as the
respondents failed to pay the actual rent
paid by the petitioner for the rented
accommodation.

11. In the counter affidavit, filed on
behalf of the second to sixth respondents by
the Additional City Magistrate (II), District
Prayagraj, it has been admitted that as per
Government Order dated 27 July 2006, in
case of nonavailability of government
accommodation, the concerned judicial
officer may himself/herself arrange for an
accommodation on rent, in accordance with
law, stature/class of the post held by
him/her. The difference of money beyond
the prescribed H.R.A. shall be borne by the
State Government. It is further stated in
paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit that
issuance of Rent Justification Certificate is
for non-residential buildings and not for
residential houses/accommodations.

12. In the earlier counter affidavit,
district authorities have justified their
conduct, when, admittedly, as per the
Government Order, judicial officer was
entitled to the entire rent of the rented
accommodation in the event government
accommodation was not available. The
conduct and approach of the Staterespondents in withholding the rent and
compelling
the
judicial
officer
from
repeatedly
approaching
the
district
authorities for accommodation not only
tantamounts to harassment, but also makes
a serious dent upon the constitutional
principle of separation of powers between
the executive and judiciary.

13. The State Government issued a
Government Order dated 7 July 2006,
addressed to the Registrar General, High
Court, Allahabad, in compliance of the
4 All. Divakar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
587
recommendations made by the Shetty
Commission,
modifying
the
earlier
Government Order dated 27 January 2006.
The Government Order, inter alia, provided
that in the event the State is unable to
provide government accommodation to the
judicial officer commensurate to his status
and the officer rents an accommodation, the
additional expenses towards the rent would
be borne by the State Government. The
subject and the amendment reads thus:

"डनयुडक्त अनुभाग-4 लखनऊः डदनांकः 27 जुलाई,
2006

डवषयः- प्रथम राष्रीय न्याडयक वेतन आयोग (शेट्टी आयोग)
की संस्तुडत के अन्तगित राज्य की न्याडयक सेवा/उच्चतर न्याडयक
सेवा के सदस्यों को भत्ते एवं सुडवधाएं प्रदान डकये जाने डवषयक
शासनादेश डदनांक 27 जनवरी, 2006 में आवास/मकान डकराया
भत्ते की उडल्लडखत व्यवस्था का आंडशक संशोधन।

संशोडधत व्यवस्था

समस्त न्याडयक अडधकारी अपनी पात्रता के आधार पर
डनःशुल्क सरकारी अथवा सरकार द्वारा लीज पर डलया गया आवास
आवंडित करवाने के हकदार होंगे। सरकार द्वारा आवास उपलब्ध न
करवा पाने की डस्थडत मे शासन के संगत आदेशों के अनुसार
सम्बडन्धत न्याडयक अडधकारी को मकान डकराया भत्ता देय होगा,
परन्तु यडद न्याडयक अडधकारी द्वारा स्वयं के प्रयास से अपनी पात्रता
के अनुसार डकराये पर डलये गये आवास का वाडजब प्रमाडणत
डकराया, उसे अनुमन्य मकान डकराया भत्ता से अडधक है, तो अन्तर
की धनराडश का व्यय भी राज्य सरकार द्वारा सुसंगत लेखा शीषि के
अन्तगित वहन डकया जायेगा।

14. Subsequently, the aforenoted
Government
Order
came
to
be
amended/modified vide Government Order
dated 31 August 2021, wherein, the
provision of providing Rent Justification
Certificate was done away with.

15. Further, upper limit was
prescribed
towards
maximum
rent
admissible to the judicial officer on
renting accommodation in the event
government accommodation was not
available.
The
Government
Order
provides for determining actual rent
admissible on the basic/level salary of the
judicial officer which would vary from
region to region. The relevant portion of
the Government Order dated 31 August
2021, is extracted :

"3(1)(ग) उपयुिक्त मूि वेति के आधार पर नकसी
न्यानयक अनधकारी को िििऊ, मुरादािाद, मेरठ, गानियािाद,
अिीगढ़, आगरा, िरेिी, कािपुर, इिाहािाद, गोरिपुर,
वाराणसी, सहारिपुर, नफरोिािाद एवं झांसी शहर में तैिाती की
नथथनत में उसे सरकारी आवास उपिब्ध ि कराये िा सकिे की
नथथनत में उसके थवयं के प्रयास से निये गये आवास के वानिि
नकराये की अनधकतम सीमा उसके मूि वेति का 18 प्रनतशत
होगी।

3(1)(घ) िििऊ, मुरादािाद, मेरठ, गानियािाद,
अिीगढ़, आगरा, िरेिी, कािपुर, इिाहािाद, गोरिपुर,
वाराणसी, सहारिपुर, नफरोिािाद एवं झांसी शहर के अनतररक्त
राज्य के अन्य नकसी भी िगर में तैिाती की नथथनत में नकसी
न्यानयक अनधकारी को सरकारी आवास उपिब्ध ि कराये िा
सकिे की नथथनत में उसके थवयं के प्रयास से निये गये आवास के
वानिि नकराये की अनधकतम सीमा वह धिरानश होगी िो उसके
मूि वेति का 09 प्रनतशत एवं उसे राज्य सरकार के नियमों के
अिुसार अिुमन्य मकाि नकराये भत्ते के योग के िरािर हो। िोएडा
में तैिाती की नथथनत में नकसी न्यानयक अनधकारी को सरकारी
आवास उपिब्ध ि कराये िा सकिे की नथथनत में उसके थवयं के
प्रयास से निये गये आवास के वानिि नकराये की अनधकतम
सीमा वह धिरानश होगी िो उसके मूि वेति का 18 प्रनतशत
एवं उसे राज्य सरकार के नियमों के अिुसार अिुमन्य मकाि
नकराये भत्ते के योग के िरािर हो।

3(1)(ि) उक्तवत (ग) एवं (घ) की निधािररत सीमा के
अन्तगित नकसी न्यानयक अनधकारी के नकराये के मकाि का िो
वानिि नकराया निधािररत होगा एवं निसका वाथतनवक रूप में
भुगताि नकया िायेगा उसमें से उसे राज्य सरकार के नियमों के
अिुसार अिुमन्य हो रहे मकाि नकराये भत्ते की धिरानश को
घटाकर शेर् धिरानश की प्रनतपूनति कर दी िायेगी।

3(1)(छ) यह भी निदेनशत नकया िाता है नक नकसी भी
न्यानयक अनधकारी नििको सरकारी आवास ि उपिब्ध कराये िािे
के नथथनत में नकराये का मकाि िेकर आवानसत होिा पड रहा है
उिके निये वानिि नकराया िोएडा, िििऊ, मुरादािाद, मेरठ,
गानियािाद, अिीगढ़, आगरा, िरेिी, कािपुर, इिाहािाद,
गोरिपुर, वाराणसी, सहारिपुर, नफरोिािाद एवं झांसी शहर में रू०
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20,000 की सीमा के अधीि एवं अन्य शहरों में रू० 15,000
की सीमा के अधीि अथवा उपयुिक्त प्रथतरों में निधािररत अनधकतम
सीमा के अधीि, दोिों में िो अनधक हो, निधािररत नकया िा
सकेगा।"

16. Shetty Commission Report dated
11 November 1999, while dealing with
house rent allowance and other related
issues observed that housing is a basic
need, next only to food and clothing.
Supreme Court in ''All India Judges'
case2, in paragraph 33 and 34, observed
that provision of an official accommodation
for every judicial officer should be made
mandatory.
The
relevant
portion
of
paragraph 33 and 34 is extracted:

"33. Provision of an official residence
for every Judicial Officer should be made
mandatory. A Judicial Officer to work in a
manner expected of him has to free himself
from
undue
obligations
of
others,
particularly owners of buildings within his
jurisdiction who ordinarily may have
litigation before him. This is mostly the
case in rural areas where outstation
judicial courts are located.

34. ....A judicial officer who is not
provided residential accommodation is
obliged to go in for rented accommodation.
In view of the prevailing rate of rent, the
smallest accommodation that can be taken
may often cost 75 per cent to 100 per cent
of the monthly salary, a situation which
cannot be countenanced by any logic. It is
absolutely
necessary
that
appropriate
conditions should be provided for the
judicial officer and he should have
reasonable mental peace in order that he
may perform his duties satisfactorily.
Rendering justice is a difficult job. It is
actually a divine act. Unless the judicial
officer has a reasonably worry free mental
condition, it would be difficult to expect
unsoiled justice from his hands."

17. Further in paragraph 36, Supreme
Court
directed
that
until
adequate
government accommodation is available, it
should be the obligation of the State at the
instance of the High Court to provide
requisite accommodation for every judicial
officer.

18. The State Government vide
Government Order dated 5 October 2020,
issued directions to all the District
Magistrates with regard to allotment of
government accommodation to the judicial
officer by granting them first preference as
against the Executive Officers/Magistrates.
The relevant portion of the Government
Order reads thus:

"3- अतः इस सम्िन्ध में पुिः मुझे यह कहिे का निदेश
हुआ है नक निि न्यानयक अनधकाररयों को उिकी कॉिोनियों में
आवास उपिब्ध िहीं हो पा रहे , उि न्यानयक अनधकाररयों को
ििपद में नििानधकारी के नियंत्रणाधीि उपिब्ध कॉिोनियों में से
उिकी पात्रता के अिुरूप आवास प्रथम वरीयता के आधार पर
आवंनटत करिे का कष्ट करें।"

19. Accordingly, as per Government
Order dated 27 July 2006, petitioner is
entitled to actual rent of the rented
accommodation. In any case, by the
subsequent Government Order dated 5
October 2020, a judicial officer posted at
Allahabad (Prayagraj) is entitled to
minimum Rs. 20,000/- over and above the
admissible H.R.A. or 18 percent of his
basic/level of pay whichever is higher.
The arrears claimed by the petitioner
would also be covered by the subsequent
Government Order. The case of the
petitioner, however, is covered by the
earlier Government Order dated 27 July
2006, i.e., actual rent of the rented
accommodation minus the H.R.A.

20. In the circumstances, the writ
petition is allowed.
4 All. Brijendra Pal Singh Vs. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank & Ors.
589

21. The impugned Rent Justification
Certificate dated 21 June, 2019, is set aside
and quashed.

22. The respondents are directed to
pay/refund Rs. 3,39,472/-, towards the
arrears of rent paid by the petitioner along
with interest at the rate of 7% per annum
from the due date till the date of payment.
The amount shall be released by the
competent authority of the State within four
weeks from the date of service of this order
upon
the
second
respondent-District
Magistrate, District Prayagraj.

23. Registry to ensure compliance.

24. No cost.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 589
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 6907 of 2004

Brijendra Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
R.B.S. Rathore, D.K. Singh Chauhan, Surendra
Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Balram Yadav, N N Jaiswal, Rakesh Chaudhary,
S.N. Shukla

A. Civil Law - Disciplinary proceedings -
Rules of Natural Justice - Rules of natural
justice require that a party must be given
the opportunity to adduce all relevant
evidence upon which he relies - the
evidence of the opposite party should be
taken in his presence and that he should
be
given
the
opportunity
of
crossexamining the witnesses examined by
that party - Not providing the opportunity
to cross-examine the witnesses, would
violate the principles of natural justice -
Reasoned and Speaking order - an order
passed by an authority should be a
reasonable one and the objection taken by
a person should be dealt with - If no
reasons are given in the impugned order
then it will not be possible to know as
what was going in the mind of the
decision making authority on the basis of
which he come to the conclusion and
passed the impugned order - Disciplinary
proceedings after retirement - there is no
provision for conducting a disciplinary
enquiry after retirement nor any provision
stating
that
in
case
misconduct
is
established, a deduction could be made
from the retiral benefits (Para 23, 24)

B. Petitioner was initially appointed as
Accountant in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas
Bank - While working at Jhinjhak Branch,
he
committed
certain irregularities
-
petitioner was issued charge sheet -
Enquiry
officer
prepared
the
enquiry
report without giving any opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner and
without giving him any opportunity to
prove his innocence by means of various
documents as also to cross examine the
witnesses which were sought to be relied
upon in support of the charges - Reply
submitted by the petitioner was not
considered by the respondent before
passing the impugned order - Respondent
fixed 28.7.2004 as the date for personal
hearing and for cross examination by the
petitioner, which was sent by letter dated
13.7.2004 - the said letter was not
conveyed to the petitioner prior to the
date fixed i.e. 28.7.2004 and it was
conveyed
only
on
9.8.2004
through
registered letter dated 4.8.20224 much
after date fixed for personal hearing and
for cross examination - Held - impugned
order passed by the respondent in utter
disregard of principles of natural justice -
As the Petitioner retired from service on
29.7.2004 and that there was no provision