RAM BADAN CHAUHAN Vs. REGIONAL ADMISTRATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of dismissal from service dated 25.9.1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 12.7.1999 confirming the said order have been questioned by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Secretary of Co-operative Societies, Ballia in the year 1978. He stood transferred as Secretary of Baharpur Sadhan Sahkari Samiti in Nagra Block of District Ballia. vide communication order dated 7.12.1993, petitioner was suspended on account of certain financial irregularities committed by him while functioning on the said post in the year 1984. The order of suspension was followed by an enquiry and two charges were framed against the petitioner i.e. while posted at Baharpur Sadhan Sahkari Samiti in Nagra Block of District Ballia he had not handed over the items to the new incumbent as a result of which stocks were found deficient in the Godown and the second charge was that the petitioner had not issued receipts of Rs. 2800/- even though the said amount was allegedly received by him from the two members of the Society. Inquiry Officer in his report found that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 85,159/-. In respect of the second charge petitioner had acknowledged that he had received the amount and offered to return the money back.

(3.) A report alongwith proceedings was submitted to the competent authority who vide its notice issued on 3.9.1994 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 85,159/-within a week. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and offered to deposit Rs. 2800/- collected by him from the two members of the society. In his reply to the first charge, petitioner stated that the loss was caused on account of dilapidated condition of the Godown for which he had consistently requested the authorities to affect the repairs in the said Godown. He further stated that the incident is of 1984 and detection of shortage in the year 1993 after about ten years is not permissible. But to the utter surprise of the petitioner, on receipt of the explanation, the impugned order of dismissal has been passed. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which has also been dismissed vide order dated 12.7.1999. Hence this writ petition.