- (1.) The appellant in each of these three appeals was an employee of Lucknow Producers Cooperative Milk Union, respondent 1. All of them were punished in departmental proceedings. Separate Writ Petition were filed in the High court challenging the punishment and the Writ Petition were disposed of by a common judgment. At the time special leave was granted in the first two appeals it was confined to one question, namely, whether issuance of the notification under S. 122 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, taking away the disciplinary control of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Institutional Service Board in regard to the employees of respondent 1 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that with the issue of the notification referred to above the appellate forum against disciplinary punishment has been taken away and delinquent employees of respondent 1 are left with no forum of appeal to challenge the adverse orders. It is difficult to contend and even more difficult to accept, in the backdrop of a series of authorities that where punishment is inflicted, such order would be validly final in the absence of a forum for appeal. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondent 1 agrees that steps should be taken to provide an appellate forum in regard to the delinquent employees of the respondent to entertain appeals against punishment and dispose them of in accordance with law.
(3.) In regard to the three cases before us we find that the High court examined the contentions in the case of Ram Singh at length but did not go into the merit of the matter in regard to the other two. While dealing with the case of Ram Singh the High court noticed that some of the aspects were factual and findings of fact had been reached which in exercise of the writ jurisdiction could not be gone into. The High court also found that out of the several charges for which punishment had been imposed only two charges being 3 and 7 had been made out. Counsel for the appellant in that case contended before us that if an appellate forum was available factual aspects could have been examined and if one or two charges out of the many were found sustainable, theappellate authority could legitimately examine the justification of the punishment. The appellant has been deprived of all these benefits in the absence of the appellate forum.;