Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vishal Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri K.S. Pawar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. Under challenge in the instant writ petition is an order dated 28.12.2006 by means of which Cane Commissioner/Chairman State Cane Services Authority, U.P. dismissed the services of petitioner and also ordered recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,28,184.31/ - from him.
(2.) ASSAILING the impugned order of punishment, Sri Vishal Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner has strenuously argued that while passing the impugned order and also while conducting the inquiry, the respondents have not followed the provisions contained in Regulation 68 of U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation, 1975'). Drawing attention of the Court to Regulation 68 of Regulation 1975, Sri Vishal Singh has submitted that the said provision mandates the employer to issue second show cause notice and in the instant case before passing the impugned order of dismissal, the proposed order of punishment itself was not served on the petitioner, which amounts to flagrant violation of the mandatory provision contained in Regulation 68 of Regulation, 1975. He also stated that on account of non observance of provision contained in Regulation 68, the entire departmental proceedings drawn and carried out against the petitioner are illegal and hence based on such illegal proceedings, the impugned punishment order is also not tenable.
(3.) THE second limb of argument of Sri Vishal Singh in support of the case of the petitioner is that there are certain documents and materials which were collected by the department after conclusion of inquiry by the Inquiry Officer and even after submission of inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer which the petitioner was never confronted with. It is not only that the material, as is reflected in the letter dated 12.7.2005, was collected but was used by the respondents to pass the impugned order of punishment. Sri Vishal has vehemently submitted that in fact the entire departmental proceedings have been conducted on absolutely wrong premise inasmuch as without ascertaining the loss, the departmental proceedings were initiated and subsequently the loss which has allegedly been caused to department has been ascertained after conclusion of inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. His further submission is that without forming an opinion about actual loss, departmental proceedings could not be instituted or initiated against the petitioner.;