- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the dismissal order dated 17.1.2013, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Management Trainee in the year 1984 and after completion of training, he was appointed as Manager Grade -III (FO) and since then he was working as such. In the year 2006, the petitioner was posted as Incharge Manager, Bijnore Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh (for short "DUSS"). Vide order dated 15.2.2006, he was transferred to Firozabad DUSS and joined at Firozabad on 24.2.2006. When the petitioner joined at Firozabad, condition of Firozabad DUSS was very poor and DUSS was on the verge of closure as only 500 Kg. of milk was being procured and the reason was that since long time Firozabad DUSS had not paid the dues of the farmers of their supplied milk and about Rs.50 lakh was due to the farmers and the farmers were not supplying milk to Firozabad DUSS because of non -payment of their dues but rather they were supplying the milk to private dairies which were ten in number and were paying even advance money to farmers. The petitioner remained at Firozabad DUSS for about six months and during this period he wrote several official letters to opposite parties for providing financial assistance to DUSS to clear the dues of the farmers so that the procurement of milk may be enhanced but the opposite parties as usual did not provid any financial assistance. However, the petitioner of his own efforts enhanced the milk procurement up to 6500 Kg per day which was only about 500 -600 Kg at the time of joining of the petitioner. The petitioner has also written several official letters to opposite party no.2 pointing out the illegalities committed by the Chairman, of the DUSS and also written several letters to the Chairman to deposit the sale money of the milk sold by him in the account of DUSS and also tried to put restraint on the illegal acts of the Chairman. Since the petitioner reported the illegal acts of the Chairman to opposite party no.2 and put restraint to some extent of his illegal acts, hence on 3.8.2006 several anti -social elements, who were the persons of the Chairman, stormed into the premises of DUSS, Firozabad and beat the employees/ officials, tore the official files and furniture and threatened the petitioner and other employees of Pradeshik Co -operative Dairy Federation (for short "PCDF") that if they come in DUSS, then their grave will be built in the premises of DUSS. The incident was informed by all the employees of DUSS, Firozabad to the Managing Director, PCDF by fax on 3.8.2006 itself. On 14.8.2006, the Managing Director PCDF wrote a letter dated 14.8.2006 to the Senior Superintendent of Police that the petitioner and other employees have come to Lucknow Head Office and on account of fear they are not ready to go to Firozabad. The task force was sent to Firozabad to give the report and the employees were directed to go to Firozabad to provide the documents to the task force so that security to such employees may be provided. The petitioner went to Firozabad DUSS and worked with the task force up to 21.8.2006 and head of the task force also gave certificate to this effect. On 17.8.2006, the Chairman relieved the petitioner from DUSS, Firozabad and opposite party no.2 in place of the petitioner posted one T.P. Singh as Unit Incharge. Opposite party no.2 did not take any corrective measure as suggested by the petitioner during his six months posting and after the petitioner, a number of Unit Incharges were posted but no one was able to manage the affairs and ultimately DUSS, Firozabad was closed down. Since the petitioner dared to report the illegal acts of the Chairman, who was a political person, hence opposite party no.2 instead of taking any action against the Chairman, in a very arbitrary manner initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and appointed one Bheem Prakash of the Dairy Development Department as Enquiry Officer. A charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on 15.5.2007. The petitioner after receiving charge sheet vide letter dated 15.5.2007 demanded documents from the Enquiry Officer. When long time elapsed and the documents were not supplied to the petitioner, he submitted a tentative reply to the charge sheet denying all the charges on 18.8.2007 in fear of ex -parte enquiry. The Enquiry Officer without holding any enquiry and without fixing any date, time and place to prove the charges or to allow the petitioner to produce his evidence submitted enquiry report vide letter dated 31.12.2009 on the basis of reply submitted to the charge sheet. Opposite party no.2 without looking as to whether enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law issued show cause notice of dismissal from service on 27.1.2010. On receiving the show cause notice, the petitioner replied to opposite party no.2 that the enquiry officer in an arbitrary manner has proved charges and the enquiry be conducted by another officer of the PCDF but he did not submit any reply to the show cause notice and he continuously insisted for supply of documents. The documents were not supplied to the petitioner and ultimately, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.1.2013.
(3.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after filing of the reply to the charge sheet, enquiry report was submitted and no date, time and place was fixed by the Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry and neither any enquiry was held in accordance with law. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to produce defence evidence to disprove the charges. Apart from it, the charges were not proved before the Enquiry Officer in any manner. He further submits that the documents demanded by the petitioner were not supplied though the petitioner has submitted tentative reply to the charge sheet. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in the case of Kamla Charan Misra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009 27 LCD 130 , Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., 2003 21 LCD 610and Suresh Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others,2008 26 LCD 461]. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioner has not submitted reply to the show cause notice for about three years. He has been continuously demanding documents. The enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the enquiry report was submitted. A show cause notice was issued to him to which he did not submit reply deliberately and authorities have no option but to dismiss the petitioner from service.;