- (1.) Petitioner is an employee of Charthawal Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Charthawal, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society'), which is a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, registered under the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Petitioner was an Accountant in the society. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on various charges of remaining unauthorizedly absent, working contrary to the interest of society, failing to deposit Rs.1,41,450.65/- alongwith 18% interest, indicipline, violating orders passed by the authorities etc. An enquiry apparently was conducted in the matter, in which petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled, and ultimately the society resolved in its meeting dated 16.5.1997 vide agenda no.3 to dismiss petitioner from service, which got communicated vide order dated 19.5.1997, and is assailed in the present writ petition.
(2.) The order records that Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Meerut Division, Meerut, vide his letter dated 2nd April, 1997, has approved dismissal of petitioner from service. According to petitioner, approval of Deputy Registrar had been obtained in compliance of the circular issued by the Registrar dated 18.2.1991, providing that no employee of a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society shall be dismissed without obtaining approval from the Deputy Registrar.
(3.) The order is challenged on the ground that no approval could have been granted without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and since petitioner has not been heard before grant of approval by the Deputy Registrar, as such, the order is bad in law. For substantiating such argument, reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.11195 of 2007 (Umesh Narain Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others), dated 22.9.2011, wherein observation made by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.986 of 2006 (U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Lucknow through its Managing Director and another Vs. Vijay Shanker Rai) has been relied upon. Relevant observations made in Umesh Narain Tripathi is reproduced:- "Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the provisions of Regulation-87 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 before any major penalty could be imposed against the petitioner, prior concurrence ought to have been obtained from the Board and before giving approval of major penalty Board was required to hear the petitioner but no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner before the Board prior to passing of the impugned order against him. While elaborating his submission he has submitted that the Managing Director has merely issued show cause notice to the petitioner along with copy of inquiry report. On receipt of the same when the petitioner has asked copies of the documents for reply of said show cause notice, instead of furnishing those documents the Managing Director has referred the matter before Board for seeking approval under Regulation 87 of the Regulations and no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner before any approval given by Board, therefore, the impugned order passed by concerned respondents cannot be sustained. In support of his submission he has also placed reliance upon two decisions of this court rendered in Vijay Shanker Rai Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary (Co-operative) Government of U.P., Lucknow and others, 2006 64 AllLR 54, wherein in para 13 of the decision this court observed as under:- "13. A proper appreciation of Regulation 87 reveals that the word prior approval has been specifically included in the Regulation which can have no other meaning but that before passing any order of major penalty as contemplated under Regulation 84 1 (e) to (g), the Board of Directors has to apply its mind and then only an order imposing a major penalty can be passed. I draw strength from the decision cited by learned Counsel for the petitionerand I am in agreement with the said judgment. To my mind, no other interpretation of Regulation 87 can be given. To do so, would render the very purpose of the rule redundant and the purpose for which the rule has been enacted would fail." The aforesaid judgement rendered by Hon'ble Single Judge has been up-held by Division Bench of this court in Special Appeal No. 986 of 2006, U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Lucknow Through its Managing Director and another Vs. Vijay Shanker Rai, 2006 65 AllLR 510, wherein the Division Bench of this Court after referring several other decisions in para-8 and 11 of the decision observed as under:- "8. Moreover, the purpose and object requiring the management to seek prior concurrence of the Board is to protect the employee from any arbitrary and illegal punitive action on the part of the management without strictly observing procedure prescribed in the Regulations. The Board, being an independent statutory body, is expected to scrutinize the matter as to whether the proceedings have been conducted in a fair and impartial manner, consistent with the procedure prescribed under the rules and the employee is not being unduly harassed. Therefore, we are of the view that the, Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly held that without prior concurrence of the Board the order of dismissal passed by the management was unsustainable and the same was liable to be quashed. 11. We, therefore, modify the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge and while upholding the judgment under appeal setting aside the dismissal order, modify rest of the directions and and provide that the appellant is at liberty to take further action for seeking prior concurrence of the Board under Regulation 87 in accordance with rules. The Board shall consider the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides and shall take decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving proposal, if any, from the appellant along with the certified copy of this order." The aforesaid decisions are binding upon this court also, therefore, in my opinion, the Board was required to give opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter before approval was granted for imposing major penalty upon him but in fact the Board did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before imposing major penalty, as such the impugned order dated 19.9.2006, dismissing the petitioner from service, passed by Managing Director without prior opportunity of hearing provided by the Board, cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed.";