Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -By this petition, the order dated 18.12.1992 passed by the Secretary, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, Aharan, Vikas Khand Itmadpur, district Agra (hereinafter called as the 'Samiti') has been challenged by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
(2.) THE Samiti is registered under the Societies Registration Act. THE recruitment, terms and conditions etc. of service of the employees are governed by the provisions of U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. The brief facts of the case are that there was only one sanctioned post of Salesman in the Samiti. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner moved an application dated 18.4.1988 for the post of Salesman. A Selection Committee was constituted by the Board and petitioner was selected and appointed vide appointment letter dated 20.4.1988. The period of probation was one year. The petitioner pleaded that he had completed the aforesaid period of probation successfully and the petitioner was thereafter confirmed by order dated 3.8.1991 passed by the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P., Agra. It is further averred in the petition that Shri Dhiraj Singh and thereafter Sri Pooran Singh Rana, who joined as Secretary of the Samiti, wanted to accommodate some other person on the post of Salesman on which the petitioner was working, hence he was arbitrarily issued notice that a sum of Rs. 19,060.04 is due against the petitioner. The notice was replied by the petitioner denying that any balance was due by letter dated 30.10.1991, inter alia, stating that if an enquiry be held and in case any amount is found due against the petitioner, he is ready to deposit the same. It is further averred that the petitioner was given dearness allowance with effect from 1.10.1991 thus, revising his pay and a higher grade was granted vide letter dated 24.2.1992 issued by respondent No. 1. The petitioner further contends that had there been any amount due against him, he could not have been given higher pay scale which is promotion. However, again the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P., Agra, issued a notice dated 3.11.1992, pointing out that an amount of Rs. 19,060.04 relating to the year 1989-90 was due from the petitioner in accordance with the balance-sheet of that year. A detailed reply dated 11.11.1991 was submitted by the petitioner, inter alia, stating that no details of the alleged balance was furnished inspite of repeated requests and Shri Dhiraj Singh had already adjusted the petitioner's salary from April, 1991 to September, 1991, towards the alleged amount. The petitioner again prayed that an enquiry by a competent officer be got made and in case any thing is found as balance against the petitioner, he is ready to deposit the same. The explanation of the petitioner dated 11.11.1992 has been appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3 i.e., the Secretary, again issued a notice dated 3.12.1992 on the same facts to which the petitioner again submitted a detailed reply dated 17.12.1992 through registered post reiterating his earlier contentions. THE notice and reply of the petitioner are appended as Annexures-9 and 10 to the writ petition. THE grievance of the petitioner is that his explanation dated 17.12.1992 was not considered and impugned order dated 18.12.1992 was passed by the Secretary of the Samiti terminating the services of the petitioner illegally and arbitrarily. THE impugned order, according to the petitioner, is without jurisdiction. It is alleged that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and petitioner's bona fide request for furnishing details of the alleged dues or balance amount. It is contended that Regulation 19 of the Employees Service Regulations, 1975, provides that in case of a temporary employee, payment of one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof is a condition precedent before termination of services and in case of a confirmed employee, service can be terminated by 3 months notice. It is argued that since no such notice or pay, as provided under Regulations 19 has been given to the petitioner, the impugned order is in clear violation of the mandatory provisions of law. He submits that the petitioner has worked for about five years on his post after the regular selection and approval after completion of probation his services cannot be terminated in such a manner.;