MAHENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE U.P. PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES CENTRALISED SERVICE RULES BADAUN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Triloki Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, learned brief holder of Sri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel, who had filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.2 on 24.05.2009.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against termination order dated 17.05.2004 passed by Member Secretary Administrative Committee/District Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies U.P. Budaun terminating the services of the petitioner, who was Secretary Musiya Kasba Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Limited Block Bisauli District Budaun. Petitioner was a member of Centralized Service and his services were governed by U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies Centralized Service Regulations. Petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that he had embezzled lacs of rupees. Prior to passing of the termination order, charge sheet was given to the petitioner.

(3.) AS counter-rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and parties have been heard on merit at length, hence I do not propose to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. Moreover in view of the allegation of the petitioner that District Assistant Registrar utterly flouted the earlier order of Regional Administrative Committee dated 06.08.2003 and passed fresh termination order almost on the same charges it is not appropriate to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal. It is quite strange that in the impugned dismissal order, there is absolutely no mention of earlier proceedings and order of Regional Administrative Committee dated 06.08.2003. Counter affidavit was filed by Sri Ashok Kumar Saxena, Cadre In-charge of PACS in District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Budaun. In Para-8 it has been stated that petitioner embezzled more than Rs.25 lacs from the assets of Musiya Nagla Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd and the documents of the Society were not available and in case the documents had been made available, embezzled amount could go upto Rs.50 lacs. Paras 17 and 18 of the counter affidavit are quoted below: