D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner who was confirmed Co-operative Supervisor in U.P. Co-operative Union Limited, was transferred from Jalaun to the Head Office by order dated 21.11.1981. Against the said order the petitioner had moved a writ petition, on which by order dated 11.1.1982 it was clarified that the suspension proceedings taken against the petitioner may go on but the order shall not be given effect to and in the meantime the petitioner shall not be compelled to assume the charge at the transferred place. It is allogod that having been annoyed on account of grant of the interim order the respondents had purported to terminate the petitioner's services by order dated 26.11.1983 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). It is contended by Sri Bhagwati Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in view of Section 22, without any notification no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against the petitioner. However, the said order dated 26.11.1983 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1843 of 1984 on the ground that the same was passed without serving any charge-sheet, without giving any opportunity to file reply to the charge-sheet and without holding any inquiry against the petitioner. The writ petition was, however, dismissed on 27.2,1984 on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of appeal. Thereupon on 24.3.1984 the petitioner filed an appeal. In connection with the said appeal the petitioner filed an application by which he had sought to adduce certain evidence in support of his case to contradict the decision in the inquiry. The said appeal, however, was rejected on the ground of its being barred by time by an order dated 27.4.1984. Against the said order dated 27.4.1984 the petitioner preferred another Writ Petition No. 7093 of 1984 which was disposed of by directing the petitioner 10 approach the appellate authority explaining the delay by an orrder dated 13.8.1984. On 21.8.1984 the petitioner filed an application explaining the delay and prayed for disposel of the appeal on merits which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. By an order dated 10.12.1986 the petitioner was intimated that he may submit his reply to the charge which are "22" in number, levelled against him. The said communication is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted his reply on 8.6.1987. It is alleged that the petitioner did not hear anything about the said appeal thereafter. By communication, dated 7.3.1988 the petitioner was informed that his appeal was dismissed on 28.1.1998 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the said order of termination of service and the order of dismissal of his appeal.
(2.) Sri Bhagwati Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in absence of any notification under Section 22 of' U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, there cannot be any domestic inquiry held against the petitioner and, as such, the entire proceeding is void. Secondly he contends that no charge-sheet having been given and no opportunity to show cause having been given and there having been no inquiry proceeding the order of termination is void and nullity, since no such order of termination could be passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. The third contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged allegation that attempt was made to serve the petitioner a copy of the charge-sheet is a myth. Inasmuch as during the said period the petitioner was staying at Allahabad The alleged allegation of publication in some local daily newspaper where the petitioner was staying is not the proper circulation. Since it was not circulated at Allahabad and therefore, it cannot be treated as adequate service and there was no question of affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority has not considered the case of the petitioner and did not afford opportunity of hearing to him. Despite his prayer for giving opportunity to adduce evidence before the appellate authority, he was not given adequate opportunity to do so. It was further contended that he was not given opportunity of hearing by the appellate authority. The last contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the appellate authority does not spell out sufficient reasons and has not dealt with merit of the case and, as such the same is liable to be dismissed on these grounds. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that present writ petition should be allowed and the order of termination should be set aside.
(3.) Sri Sunil Kumar Rai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand contends relying on the counter-affidavit and the annexures annexed thereto that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to attend the inquiry. Though suspended he preferred to stay at Allahabad for the purposes of persuing his remedy in this High Court. According to him since the order of suspension was stayed, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to remain out of office by reason of non-existence of the order. The suspension pursuant to the order passed by this Court the petitioner ought to have attended his office. He also submitted that it appears from the order itself that since sufficient opportunity was made to serve copy of the charge-sheet, therefore, the disciplinary authority has no option but to proceed ex pane with the inquiry. He further submits that the charges levelled against him were grave in nature and were found on scrutiny of papers by the disciplinary authority. He further submits that in appeal the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing to defend himself. Even pursuant to the application he was asked to adduce evidence after submitting proper reply. While leading the Court through the appellate order and translating the same at the bar he pointed out that the petitioner was present in the hearing of appeal and his reply was duly considered and he was asked to adduce evidence on the defence submitted by him by means of his reply. But he could not do so. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the appellate authority. He also pointed out to the acknowledgment Card by which notice of hearing of appeal was served on the petitioner, was received him.;