- (1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Kailash Nath Mehrotra. an employee of the U. P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh. (to be hereinafter referred to as the Federation), seeks to obtain a Rule against the Federation and its Secretary, respondent No. 2. to show cause why Annexure 10 dismissing him from service of the Federation be not quashed and why the petitioner be not directed to continue in the service of the Federation. Cause has been shown on behalf of the opposite parties by filing a counter-affidavit as also at the time of hearing of the Rule.
(2.) The admitted and stipulated facts are these The Federation is a Society registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1965 (to be mentioned hereinafter as the Act). The objects of the Federation are primarily to assist in the promotion and organisation of the wholesale consumer co-operative stores. Bye-laws of the Federation made in exercise of the power under Rule 15 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, inter alia, enumerate the powers exercisable by the Secretary and bye-law 37 (4) authorises the Secretary to suspend and punish clerical and inferior staff of the Federation (drawing pay below Rs. 200/-). subject to appeal to the Board of Directors. In other cases, he may suspend an employee with the concurrence of th President. Alongside these Bye-laws the Federation adopted the Service Rules known as the U. P. Co-operative Federation Service Rules. Rule 17 provides the procedure for holding a disciplinary enquiry into the conduct of an employee; it provides that the employee will be given an opportunity to be heard in person if he so desires and if the explanation submitted by the employee was found unsatisfactory, the punishment that is proposed to be given to him will be communicated to him and he will be required to show cause why the proposed punishment be not given to him. If no further explanation is received or the explanation is unsatisfactory, the Executive Committee or the Secretary, as the case may be. will award the punishment to him if the Executive Committee or the Secretary is satisfied that the punishment is deserved.
(3.) The petitioner was suspended by the Secretary on 15th July. 1967. because there were certain complaints against him (vide Annexure 2). A charge-sheet (Annexure 4) was served upon him the disciplinary enquiry was commenced by the then Secretary. O. P. Sharma, but when the petitioner served a notice on the Secretary in the month of April, 1968. the Executive Committee of the Federation appointed the Joint Secretary to hold the enquiry into the charges. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to explain his conduct and as a result of that enquiry the Joint Secretary submitted his findings absolving the petitioner from the charge of criminal breach of trust, but he, however, held him guilty for not maintaining the accounts regularly and for incurring expenditure in excess of the amount sanctioned by the Board (vide Annexure 18). The Secretary of the Federation was of the view that the charge of breach of trust had been brought home to the petitioner and in that light he placed his comments before the Board. In its meeting held on 18th January 1969. the Board ratified the order of dismissal which was served upon the petitioner (it being Annexure 10 dated 18th January. 1969). It may be noted that no second show-cause notice as regards the punishment proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner was served before making the order contained in Annexure 10. The contention of the Federation is that the second show-cause notice was not thought necessary in the circumstances of the present case as a similar show-cause notice dated 23rd March. 1968 had been served upon him and the reply of the petitioner dated 5th April, 1968. had been received in the course of the disciplinary enquiry done by the then Secretary, Sri Sharma, and that the second enquiry held by the Joint Secretary was a mere concession given to the petitioner.;