RAM AUTAR VERMA Vs. DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. Petitioner Ram Autar Vcrma was serving as Secretary of Faridpur Sabji Sadhan Sahkari Samiti. He was a member of Centralised Service and his services were governed by U. P. Primary Agricultural Co- operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). He was suspended from service on 25. 6. 1988 on serious charges. A charge-sheet was served on him on 25. 11. 1989. He submitted his reply to this charge-sheet on 24. 12. 1990. One Shri K. N. Mishra, Branch Manager was appointed Inquiry Officer, who sub mitted his report on 8. 3. 1991. Out of 21 charges, 20 charges were found proved against petitioner. District Administrative Committee, respondent No. 1, perused the inquiry report and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 6-5-1991 as to why petitioner may not be dismissed from service. Along with this show cause notice, a copy of the inquiry report dated 8-3-1991 and resolution of the District Administra tive Committee, dated 1-4-1991 were also served. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 20-6-1991' After receipt of the reply of petitioner, the District Administrative Committee held meet ings on 30-7-1991 and 5-10-1991. However, as petitioner failed to appear, 25-11-1991 was fixed as the next date. On this date, petitioner appeared. He was heard by the Committee. The Committee resolved that petitioner may be dismissed from service. On 9-12-1991 petitioner was accordingly dismissed. Thereafter he filed appeal before the Regional Administrative Committee. The appeal was dismissed on 8-2-1993. Both the aforesaid orders were challenged in a writ petition before this Court which was allowed on 18-2-1993 and the order of the appellate authority was set aside on the ground that appellate authority had not given reasons for dismissing the appeal. The appellate authority was required to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Liberty was also given to petitioner to raise fresh grounds. The order of this Court dated 18-2-1993 has been filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. In pur suance of the direction of this Court the appellate authority, Regional Administra tive Committee, held its meeting on 5-6-1993. Petitioner appeared before the appel late authority and was heard personally. The appellate authority again resolved that ap peal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly in pursuance of the resolution, order dated 19-6-1993 was passed dismissing the appeal of petitioner, aggrieved by which this peti tion has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Shri V. M. Sahai, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri M. S. Negi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the orders on the following grounds: Firstly, that inquiry was illegally entrusted to a person who was equal in rank to petitioner whereas the inquiry ought to have been entrusted to an Officer of the higher rank and on account of this illegality, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. Under Regulation 59 of U. P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Services Regulations, 1978, petitioner was entitled for an opportunity to produce evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses in his defence and also for an opportunity of being heard in person which has not been given to him and for this reason also the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. The proceedings are in violation of the provisions contained in Regulations 59.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated below, we do not find any merit in this petition.