BHAGWAT PRASAD Vs. DIST. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for quashing the impugned order of termination dated Jan. 24, 1986, contained in Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition, and for commanding the opposite parties to keep the petitioner in continued service and pay him salary.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was selected for the post of Secretary in the centralised cadre of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti which is also known as U.P. Primary Co-operative Credit Societies. His appointment was made in the year 1976 in accordance with the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). After successful completion of training the petitioner was appointed as Secretary in the Society w.e.f. Feb. 22, 1977 and was posted at Bhikhampur Mahigawan Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, Lucknow. A copy of his appointment letter is Annexure-1 to the petition. Thereafter the petitioner efficiently discharged his duties and during the course of his service he was transferred from one place to another. In Aug. 1982 the petitioner was transferred to some other society but as he was ill he could not join and he also could not be relieved due to incomplete handing over of the charge. He submitted joining report at the headquarters on Aug. 3, 1983. The petitioner was again required to hand over the charge to the Branch Manager and not to the Assistant Development Officer. Thereafter he joined his services again at the headquarters. A news item was published in the newspaper dater Aug. 31, 1983 which was got published by the opposite party No. 1 to the effect that the petitioner was absconding. The petitioner immediately submitted an application to the opposite party No. 2, the Member Secretary on Sept. 1, 1983 which was received on Sept. 2, 1983 indicating that he was performing his duties. This application was duly acknowledged. Thereafter the petitioner was required by the opposite party No. 2, through a letter dated Nov. 2, 1983 to deposit Rs. 7,530.75 paisa within fifteen days on the ground that there was some shortage in the funds of the society where the petitioner was earlier posted. The petitioner submitted his reply denying his liability. The petitioner continued to attend to his duties at the headquarters but he was not paid any salary inspite of several applications and his salary remained unpaid since Aug., 1982. All of a sudden an order was issued on Jan. 24, 1986 by the opposite party No. 2 terminating the services of the petitioner. The basis of the termination of the services of the petitioner was some resolution passed by the District Administrative Committee on Jan. 2, 1986. It is alleged that the appointment of the petitioner was against a substantive vacancy under Rule 25 of the Rules and the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated in the manner mentioned above, treating him to be a temporary employee. The termination order though passed in simple language is in fact by way of punishment. It is further alleged that no enquiry proceedings were conducted against the petitioner in accordance with law. In view of Rule 27 of the Rules, the petitioner stood confirmed after expiry of 21/2 years probation period and as such his services could not have been terminated, which is against the Rules.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties it is alleged that the work of the petitioner remained unsatisfactory during his tenure of service. On July 26, 1978 the Additional District Magistrate (Development) Evam Prashasak, District Co- operative Bank, Lucknow complained to the Secretary, District Co- operative Bank, Lucknow that the members of the Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Bhikhampur Mahigawan vide application dated July 26, 1978 intimated that there had been some financial irregularities in the society and enquiry into the matter was held. It is alleged that the petitioner created hindrance in the enquiry by keeping out the current documents. A copy of this complaint is Annexure A-2 to the counter affidavit. It is further alleged that on March 19, 1979 a warning was sent by the Branch Manager, District Cooperative Bank to the petitioner that recovery of loan in the month of Feb., 1979 was nil and inspite of repeated instructions he did not improve and therefore the General Manager had ordered that the petitioner should hand over the entire charge to Sri Anant Kumar Pandey, Sa-chiv of Sigramau Society. A copy of this letter is annexure A-2 to the counter affidavit. A complaint was made by the Branch Manager, Nagram Branch, against the petitioner that the petitioner committed various irregularities while posted at Sigramau Society and therefore the petitioner was asked to hand over the society's cash book and receipt book but instead he wilfully recovered the loans. A copy of this complaint is Annexure A-3 to the counter affidavit Thereafter a report was submitted by the Branch Manger. District Co-operative Bank to the General Manager, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow that Secretary of Sigramau Society had reported on Sept. 26, 1979 that the petitioner while posted at that society had embezzled a sum of Rs. 2,049.94 paisa and a sum of Rs. 147.56 paisa by engaging an Accountant on a monthly pay of Rs. 150.00 without mentioning the same in the cash book. The General Manager/Member Secretary, District Administrative Committee, Lucknow on Feb. 29, 1980, sent a letter to the District Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Lucknow that the petitioner had been absconding since June, 1979 and had not given charge of the society and that he had kept cash of Rs. 2,049.94 paisa with him. The petitioner was also given a warning by the Member Secretary of the District Committee vide letter dated Nov. 3, 1983 that if he did not deposit the amount of Rs. 7,530.75 paisa as well as the Work Register of the Society within 15 days his service would be deemed to have been terminated. The Deputy Registrar, (Central) Cooperative Societies on Jan. 4, 1984 sent a letter to the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies about embezzlement committed by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7,530.75 paisa. A first information report was lodged against the petitioner when he was posted at Gosainganj by the Additional District Co-operative Officer, Mohanlalganj alleging that a sum of Rs. 20,054.20 paisa had been embezzled by the petitioner during the period 1981-82 and 1982-83. The work of the petitioner during the year 1985 was found unsatisfactory and therefore a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why his services be not terminated. The services of the petitioner could be terminated in terms of the contract i.e., the appointment letter at any time on one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of the notice.