RIYAZUDDIN Vs. COMMISSIONER MILK DAIRY DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner has canvassed the validity of order dated 17th March, 2001 passed by respondent No. 3 thereby dismissing the petitioner from the post of Mechanic.

(2.) Necessary facts as are relevant for just adjudication of the controversy involved in this petition may be set out. The petitioner entered the service of the respondents in the year 1966, having been appointed on the post of Mechanic. In the year 1996, he was called upon to produce documents furnishing details of date of birth and educational qualifications by means of letter dated 2.11.1996 and in compliance, the petitioner submitted certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly, dated 18.11.1996 as also the transfer certificate containing details of his having passed 5th standard and indicating his date of birth as being 15.10.1946. In the certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly, he was opined to be 50 years of age on 18.11.1996. From a cumulative reading of both the certificates, it transpires that on 18.11.1996, the age of the petitioner was about 50 years. It is also evident from the record that an enquiry was set afoot and enquiry officer was appointed vide letter/order dated 22nd January, 2001, to delve into the issue pertaining to the petitioner's date of birth. It would also appear from the record that the very next day, the enquiry officer submitted his report, the quintessence of which is that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 20th January, 1942 and the transfer certificate was forged one. As a consequence of enquiry report, a notice dated 23.1.2001 was served to the petitioner to submit his explanation within 3 days prescribing therein the consequences that if he failed to submit his explanation, proceedings would follow as the conduct of the petitioner was one punishable under Section 103 (1) and (2) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act and Regulation 84 (f) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Service Regulations). It would further transpire from the record that explanation as demanded was not submitted within time and as a sequel thereto, the transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner was presumed to be forged one resulting in dismissal of the services of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that from the perusal of the order, it is explicit that taking in aid the provisions contained in Regulation 84 (f) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975, the respondents had passed order of dismissal. He further submitted that no enquiry was made and entire exercise was conducted ex parte and behind the back of the petitioner in antagonism of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further pointed out that it was essential for the authorities to serve charge-sheet as required under Regulation 85 of the Service Regulations followed by regular departmental proceeding before passing order of dismissal. The submission further proceeds that the petitioner had no knowledge about the enquiry and further that enquiry report was also not supplied to him which ex facie formed the basis of the order of dismissal and as such the entire exercise and consequent impugned order are vitiated in law. The learned counsel further canvassed that as the dismissal order had the indicia of a punishment order under Regulation 84 (f), the authorities should have followed the procedure prescribed for disciplinary proceeding as contemplated under Regulation 85 of the Service Regulations.