AMAR SINGH RATHOR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1970 petitioner was appointed as Credit Supervisor, District Co-operative Bank, Jhansi, Up to 1976 he claims to have done the work of Co-operative Societies also After the Government, in exercise of its power under Section 122-A of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has created centralised service of Secretaries of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies and framed rules known as the U. P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for regulating the conditions of service of the members of the centralised service, petit'oner was provisionally absorbed in the centralised service. He claims have been absorbed finally in 1976 after he was selected by the Secreening Committee constituted under Section 122-A of the Act read with Rules 20 and 21. He continued to work thereafter as Secretary in various Co-operative Societies, The Secretary, District Administrative Committee issued a notice, dated 24-12-1982 containing allegations of misappopriation of fertiliser to the petitioner. By that notice he was called upon to show cause within three days from the date of its receipt, falling which it shall be presumed that he accepts the allegations contained therein, entitling the Committee to take stern action against him This notice was served on the petitioner on 3-1-1983. He filed his reply, dated 5-1-1983, denying the charge of misappropriation and further raising serious allegitions of mala fide against Sri K. P Agarwal, the then Secretary of the District Administrative Committee. By letter, dated 5-1-1983 issued by the Secretary of the District Administrative Committee, petitioner's service was terminated with immediate effect by offering one month's salery in lieu of notice. Being aggrieved by it petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) The respondent have filed counter-affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions in support of the writ petition : (i) service of the petitioner, who was a permanent regular Secretary belonging to the Centralised Service, could have been terminated by one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof : (ii) order of termination of service is absolutely arbitrary and has been passed without applying the mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and without taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner filed by him in response to the show-cause notice, (iit) the impugned order has been passed at the instance of Sri K P. Agarwal, the then Secretary of the Distict Administrative Committee, who was motivated and was having strained relation with the petitioner : (iv) service of the petitioner could not have been terminated without regular departmental inquiry : (v) in the absence of inquiry from the concerned Co-operative Society regarding the alleged misappropriation of fertiliser, or action could have been taken against the petitioner : (vi) termination of service is a device employed by the respondents in order to deprive the petitioner of arrears of salary regarding which the Deputy Registrar has written a letter : and (vii) District Administrative Committee had no jurisdiction to terminate the service of the petitioner, Sri M. S. Negi, learned Counsel for the resdondents has disputed the above contentions.