SHEIKH ABDUL KALAM AZAD Vs. B M BOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 18 -3 -91 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) whereby the Petitioner's services were terminated with immediate effect by way of punishment.

(2.) THE matrix of the facts in short is that the Petitioner was appointed as Secretary/General Manager on a consolidated salary of Rs. 3600/ - - plus free un -furnished accommodation or the house rent allowance as per the rules, with effect from 16 -6 -1987 forenoon, under U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. Kanpur (in short the 'federation') on terms and conditions specified in the appointment order dated 30 -6 -1987. A charge -sheet dated 8 -1 -91 (Annexure SA -5 to the Suppl. Affidavit) was issued to the Petitioner containing as many as eight charges against him as mentioned in the charge -sheet aforementioned. The service of the charge -sheet is, however, disputed by the Petitioner. According to the Respondents, an enquiry was held ex parte inasmuch as the Petitioner failed to submit any explanation to the charges contained in the charge -sheet against the Petitioner and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure SA -6 to the Suppl. Affidavit. The services of the Petitioner were terminated by means of the impugned order aforesaid on the basis of the said enquiry report.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submitted before me that the services of the Petitioner were governed by the U.P. Co -operative Societies Employees' Services Regulation, 1975 framed by the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Services Board under Section 122 of the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act, 1965 (in short the 'Act') and that the order of termination has been passed in breach of Regulation 87 which requires that an order imposing penalty under Sub -clauses (e) to (g) of Clause (i) of the Regulation 84, shall not be passed except with the prior concurrence of the Board and that prior concurrence of the Board having not been obtained in the instant case, the impugned order of termination being in the nature of removal/dismissal from service within the meaning of Clauses (f) and (g) of Regulation 84. is void. He has also contended that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as according to the learned Counsel, the Petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity at the enquiry stage, nor was he given show -cause notice contemplated by Regulation 84 (iii) of the regulations. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer was perverse inasmuch as it was based on no valid material and was only a reproduction of the language used in the charge -sheet and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the enquiry report could not legitimately have been made the basis for termination of the Petitioner's services.