S.R.Singh - (1.) BY means of the present petition, the petitioner Dharam Pal Singh seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of dismissal dated 4-7-1983 and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid order dated 4-7- 1988 and further not to interfere in any manner with his functioning as Senior Branch Manager, Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Bareilly on the basis of the order dated 4-7-1988. The relief of directing respondents by means of a mandamus, to pay entire salary to the petitioner with effect from 2-8-1985 has also been sought for.
(2.) FACTS which are material and bear upon the merit of the case in hand, are encapsulated below. The facts are ; while the petitioner was working as Senior Branch Manager, Zila Sahkari Bank. Ltd., Barellly Branch Bareilly, he was placed under suspension with effect from 1-8-1985 by means of the order dated 2-8-1985. The suspension order was followed by lodging of a First Information Report dated 11-8-1985 on the basis whereof a case it being case Crime No. 864 of 1985. was registered against the petitioner under sections 409/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Barellly. In the course of time, an enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 25-4-1987 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). The petitioner was indicted of as many as five charges as listed In the charge-sheet, but substantially, there were two charges-one of falsifying the record and thereby to make a bid to embezzle certain amount i.e. Rs. 68301.50P, which was the subject matter of charge no. 1 and the other was that he defalcated a sum of Rs. 67.409.48P in varied transactions covered by charges 2 to 5 After concluding the enquiry, the Enquiry officer submitted a report holding that all the charges which the petitioner was Indicated of, were brought home to the petitioner. A copy of the enquiry report is annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 6-9-1987 was issued to the petitioner and he was also afforded opportunity of personal tearing vide letter dated December 11, 1987 (Annexure 12 to the petition). The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice vide letter dated 18-12-87. The Punishing Authority (District Magistrate/Administrator) upon a consideration of the material on record, took a decision on 24-4 87 to inflict punishment on the petitioner as proposed Accordingly, the papers were transmitted to the Institutional Service Board for concurrence, institutional Service Board accorded its concurrence by letter dated 16-6-1988 whereafter the District Magistrate/ Chairman of the Society exercising the powers of the Administrative Committee conferred upon him by means of a resolution no. 3 dated 13-4-1988, decided on 29-6-1988 to dismiss the petitioner from service with immediate effect and to recover interest at the rate of 18% on the amount said to be embezzled for the period during which the embezzled amount remain in unauthorised custody of the petitioner. It was also ordered that the amount, if any, payable to the petitioner would be adjusted towards his liability to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum awarded against him vide order dated 29-6-1988 It was also ordered that the petitioner would not be paid any amount other than what he had already received by way of subsistence allowance during his suspension period. The petitioner was accordingly informed of the decision vide order dated 4-7-1988, the validity of which is under challenge in the petition in hand. I have heard Sri A. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Trilokinath, learned counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, the service of the petitioner was governed by the U. P. Cooperative Societies' Employees Service Regulation, 1975 (in short the 'Regulations') framed by the V. P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board and approved by the Governor and published as required by sub-section (2) of section 122 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies' Act 1965. Regulation 84 of the Regulations lays down the penalty that an employee, who commits a breech of duty enjoined upon him or has been convicted for criminal offence or an offence under section 103 of the Act or does anything prohibited by these Regulations, may be punished with. Regulation 85 of the Regulations provides that the disciplinary proceeding against an employee shall be conducted by the Enquiry Officer with due observance of the principles of natural Justice for which it shall be necessary that : "(a) the employee shall be served with a charge-sheet containing specific charges and mention of evidence in support of each of charge and he shall be required to submit explanation in respect of the charges within reasonable time which shall not be less than fifteen days : (b) such an employee shall also be given an opportunity to produce at his own cost or to cross-examine witnesses in his defence and shall also be given an opportunity of being heard in person, if he so desires : (c) if no explanation in respect of charge sheet is received or the explanation submitted is unsatisfactory the competent authority may award him appropriate punishment considered necessary.
(3.) REGULATION 87 visualises that the order imposing penalty under subclauses (b) to (g) of clause (11 of REGULATION 84 shall not be passed except with the prior concurrence of the Board. The first submission advanced by Sri A. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, was that the petitioner was not supplied with complete copy of the Enquiry report inasmuch as the copy of the report served upon him, was un accompanied by the recommendations as to punishment made by the Enquiry Officer and the failure to do so, urged the learned Counsel, resulted in breach of principles of natural justice. It is true, as held by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. R. G. Teredesai, (1969) 2, SCC 128, that the requirements of a reasonable opportunity would not be satisfied unless the entire report of the Enquiry Officer including his views in the matter of punishment are disclosed to the delinquent servant. The above view was quoted with approval in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991), 1 SCC 588, wherein it was held as under : "We make it clear that wherever there has been an Enquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the enquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and wilt also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of the rules of natural justice and making a final order liable to challenge hereinafter.";