N. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.8.2003 as contained in Annexure-No. 1 to the writ petition passed by the opposite party No. 2, by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.
(2.) PETITIONER is a clerk in Cane Union Hardoi. In disciplinary enquiry the petitioner was punished after completing the regular disciplinary enquiry. He was censured for the financial irregularities committed by him during the period 1994-95 to 1997-98 and an order for recovery of Rs. 3,72,895.74 paise was also made by way of punishment on 5.6.2002 vide Annexure No. 11. PETITIONER filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 5.6.2002 and this Writ Petition No. 1153 of 2003 was disposed of vide order dated 20.2.2003 as contained in Annexure-2. It was held by this Court that petitioner has an alternative remedy for approaching the appellate authority under Regulation 76 of the U. P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulation, 1975. It was also held that in case the petitioner files an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order the same shall be decided by speaking and reasoned order after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to present his case and the appeal shall be decided within a period of eight weeks. The petitioner preferred an appeal as directed by this Court. This appeal has been dismissed vide impugned order Annexure No. 1. The appeal has been dismissed on two grounds namely, that no additional evidence has been filed by the petitioner and the appeal is time barred. The impugned order of punishment was passed by Secretary Regional Cane Service Authority and the impugned order dismissing the appeal has been passed by Sri Rama Shanker Singh on behalf of State Cane Service Authority. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Parmanand holding brief of Sri K. S. Pawar for the opposite parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally with the consent of the parties. It is admitted that in case of the petitioner, the provisions of the U. P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975 are applicable. Regulations 76, 82 and 88 are relevant and these regulations are as follows : "76. Appeals.-An employee who considers himself aggrieved of the order passed in his case shall have a right to appeal, within one month of the date of receipt of the order to the appellate authority mentioned in Column 5 of the II Schedule : Provided that the time taken in obtaining copies of any document required for appeal, shall not count for the limitation mentioned above and the period of one month shall be reckoned from the date of supply of the copy of the document. 82. The Cane Commissioner may at any time call for an appeal withheld by any authority and may pass such orders as he may deem fit. 88. In case an appeal is heard by a committee, the opinion of the majority shall prevail, if there is any difference of opinion amongst the member, in case the votes are equally divided the Chairman of the meeting will have a casting vote. This shall also apply to the Committee competent to award punishment initially."
(3.) DURING the period the alleged misconduct was committed, the petitioner was the treasurer as is evident from the impugned order Annexure-1. Schedule II of the U. P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulation, 1975 provides the designation of the authority who will hold the enquiries, the authority to whom the report will be submitted for decision and the authority to whom appeal will lie. The U. P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulation, 1975 have been amended with effect from 7.6.2000 and the constitution of State Cane Service Authority has been changed and now the Cane Commissioner is ex officio Chairman of the State Cane Service Authority.;