- (1.) This petition has been moved by an erstwhile employee of the District Co-operative Federation, Ltd. Ghazipur, against an order passed by the Administrator removing him from service. Petitioner was working as Assistant Accountant with the Federation. Under Section 35 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, the committee of management was superseded and an Administrator was appointed. The Administrator served on the petitioner a notice to show cause in respect of certain charges framed against him. The petitioner filed an explanation in reply to the charge-sheet on 14-4-72. On 16-4-1972 an order was passed by the Administrator stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory and that the petitioner could appear in person before the authority concerned on 18-4-1972. In this notice it was mentioned that charges 1 and 2 had been satisfactorily explained qua a part of the amount, but there was no satisfactory explanation qua the remaining amounts. In respect of charges Nos. 3 and 5 it was stated that they had not been explained at all. Petitioner appeared before the Administrator on 18-4-1972 for personal hearing. He also produced some documents. The Administrator ultimately found that the charges had been established and accordingly passed the impugned order of dismissal. Petitioner has now come up before this Court against that order.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised four contentions : (1) that the order of dismissal has been passed by an authority not competent to pass the same, (2) that opportunity of hearing was not provided before the charges were held proved against the petitioner; (3) that the second show cause notice for imposing penalty was not given; and (4) that proceedings under Sections 70 and 71 of the Act having ended in favour of the petitioner the order was unjustified.
(3.) The contention as regards the first point is that the order had been passed by the Administrator exercising the powers of the committee of management and not by the Board constituted under Section 122 (1) of the Act which provides: "The State Government may constitute an authority or authorities, in such manner as may be prescribed, for the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of co-operative societies, or a class of co-operative societies and may require such authority or authorities to frame regulations regarding recruitment emoluments, terms and conditions of service including disciplinary control of such employees and, subject to the provisions contained in Section 70, settlement of disputes between an employee of a co-operative society and the society." The relevant rule is No. 389-A, which runs as under: "The authority or authorities under Section 122 may be constituted by the State Government by notification published in the Official Gazette." On 4-3-1972 a notification was published in the Gazette regarding the constitution of the authority. The relevant portion thereof runs as under: "In pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of S. 122 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. 1965 (U. P. Act No. XI of 1966) read with Rule 389-A of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 the Governor is pleased to constitute the following authority known as the U. P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board............ for the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of the Apex Level Societies Central or Primary Societies, whose area of operation extends to more than one District or State............District Co-operative Federations........." The notification thereafter provides that the Board shall consist of a chairman and two members to be appointed by the State Government. There is no evidence on behalf of the petitioner to show whether the appointments had been in fact made on the basis of this notification before the date of the order of dismissal. According to the respondents, the Board was not constituted and the Rules and Regulations were not framed till the date of the passing of the final order i. e. April 18, 1972. The regulations were framed and published in the U. P. Gazette dated July 3, 1973. According to this notification the regulations had to take effect from the date of their publication in the Gazette and the regulation, if any, made under Section 122 of the Act was superseded with effect from that date. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that even in these regulations the authority of taking disciplinary proceedings and passing the order of dismissal has been vested in the committee of management whose powers in the present case are being exercised by the Administrator.;