Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Srikant Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 2 and 3. By this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.9.2006 passed by Managing Director, U.P. Co -operative Federation Ltd., Lucknow, contained in Annexure -8 of the writ petition, whereby the Petitioner has been dismissed from service while working on the post of Junior Engineer in U.P. Co -operative Federation Ltd. and a sum of Rs. 23,705/ -has also sought to be recovered from him. While entertaining the writ petition on 28.2.2007 this Court has merely stayed the recovery sought to be made from the Petitioner and did not stay the order of dismissal.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that during the course of inquiry the Petitioner has sought several documents but were not supplied to him, despite thereof, out of six charges levelled against him, two charges were found not proved against him and out of four charges, some charges were found partly proved against him. Besides this, on identical charges levelled against the Assistant Engineer, he was given penalty of merely a censor and a recovery of Rs. 23,705/ -was made from him. Contrary to it, besides the aforesaid amount sought to be recovered from the Petitioner, he has also been dismissed from service. The submission is that Petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of employment as on identical charges Assistant Engineer has been given minor penalty whereas the Petitioner has been dismissed from service by imposing major penalty upon him. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that punishment awarded to the Petitioner is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges found proved against him, thus the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and arbitrary, therefore, cannot be sustained.
(3.) FURTHER submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that under the provisions of Regulation -87 of U.P. Co -operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 before any major penalty could be imposed against the Petitioner, prior concurrence ought to have been obtained from the Board and before giving approval of major penalty Board was required to hear the Petitioner but No. opportunity of hearing has been provided to the Petitioner before the Board prior to passing of the impugned order against him. While elaborating his submission he has submitted that the Managing Director has merely issued show cause notice to the Petitioner along with copy of inquiry report. On receipt of the same when the Petitioner has asked copies of the documents for reply of said show cause notice, instead of furnishing those documents the Managing Director has referred the matter before Board for seeking approval under Regulation 87 of the Regulations and No. opportunity of hearing has been provided to the Petitioner before any approval given by Board, therefore, the impugned order passed by concerned Respondents cannot be sustained.;