K P GIRI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, K,P. Giri, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 20.3.98 passed by the Secretary/General Manager, U.P. Sahkari Katai Mills Ltd., Fatehpur, respondent No. 4, filed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition and the order dated 29.6.98 passed by the Chairman, Committee of Management, U.P. Sahakari Katai Mills Ltd., Fatehpur, respondent No. 2, filed as Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition. He further seeks a writ of druwdamw, commanding the respondents No. 3 and 4 not to interfere in the working of the petitioner on the post of Cost Accountant and pay his salary as and when the same is due with all arrears.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., Kanpur, which is an Apex Society within the meaning of Section 2(A-4) of the U.P. Co-operative Society Act, 1980. The U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as Federation) has been recognised as 'Federal Authority' under Section 123 of the aforesaid Act. The Federation is to advise assist, Co-ordinate, supervise, minotor and facilitate the working of the affiliated Co-operative Spinning Mills in the State of U.P. At present eleven Co-operative Spinning Mills are affiliated to the Federation. The petitioner is posted as Cost Accountant in U.P. Sahakari Katai Mills Ltd., Fatehpur, which is also one of the Unit to the Federation. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Cost Accountant in Mau-Aima Sahkari Katai Mills Ltd., Mau-Aima, District Allahabad, on 26.8.86. He was confirmed on the said post. During the year 1997 while he was working in U.P. Sahkari, Katai Mills Ltd., at Fatehpur, (hereinafter referred to as the Fatehpur Unit), the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Secretary /General Manager, U.P. Sahakari Katai Mills Ltd., Fatehpur, vide order dated 11.8.97 and way attached with the Federation Office at Kanpur. According to the petitioner. he reported for duty at the Federation Office at Kanpur. When for a considerable period of time he was not issued any chargesheet, he submitted an application on 17.1.98 to the respondent No. 4 requesting him to disclose the reasons and to supply the copy of the charge-sheet, if any, so that he may submit his explanation in defence of his case. It has been further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was not paid his subsistence allowance also. He again requested vide application dated 19.2.98 for supplying the charge- sheet which was followed by another reminder/letter on 7.2.98. According to the petitioner, he was not given any charge-sheet but on 27.3.98 he received an order whereby his services had been dispensed with. The said order was served at his residence in the campus of Fatehpur. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the next higher authority i.e. respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 rejected the appeal vide order dated 29.6.98. Both the orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri H.R. Mishra assisted by Sri R.C. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Counsel for the respondents.