Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -The validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 21.8.1999 passed by respondent No. 1, communicated to the petitioner on 12.11.1999 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him in service on the post of Co-operative Supervisor in Kisan Sewa Samiti Ltd., Moth Jhansi and to pay his salary w.e.f. September, 1995, onwards.
(2.) FACTS of the case are that the petitioner was working at Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Moth Jhansi (for short 'society'). He allegedly committed irregularities, embezzlement of Rs. 2,80,000 on 30.6.1995, interpolation of record and made illegal appointments of the employees of the society. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him and Sri Sampurnanand Shukla, Additional District Co-operative Officer, Tahsil Moth was appointed as Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry. On the basis of a preliminary enquiry report dated 4.5.1996, submitted by the aforesaid Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. No explanation was offered, as such, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 15.5.2006. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of suspension dated 15.5.2006, the petitioner instituted Civil Misc. Writ No. 39601 of 1996, before this Court which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 16.12.1996, directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment provided the petitioner co-operates. It is alleged by the respondents that the petitioner did not co-operate in the enquiry. He was served with a charge-sheet containing 26 charges but the petitioner failed to give any reply to the charge-sheet. As a result, the enquiry proceeded ex parte and show cause notice dated 31.1.1997 was served upon the petitioner. Ultimately he was terminated vide order dated 21.8.1999.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of termination, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that Sri Sampurna Nand Shukla respondent No. 4 was biased against the petitioner from the very beginning and in view of a Division Bench decision in Triloki Nath Tripathi v. Regional Administrative Committee and others, 1996 (2) LBESR 546, the impugned order dated 19.2.1997 dismissing his services is bad and impermissible in law. He drew the attention of the Court to sub-rule (d) of Regulation 59 of U. P. Pradhikari Viniyam, 1976, (P.C.U.)/ Provincial Co-operative Federation Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') which provides that officers on whose instance disciplinary action started shall not be appointed as an Enquiry Officer nor shall the Enquiry Officer with appellate authority. According to him, neither charge-sheet nor the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and he was never called upon to explain the matter or to cross-examine the witnesses. He was not supplied with the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and even order of dismissal was not served upon him. He states that the news item dated 6.1.1997 and 4.2.1997 have been published in Kanpur edition of the newspaper which is neither the place of posting of the petitioner nor his residence is at Kanpur as he is resident of Jhansi that he possess his own house in village Karguwan Post Medical College at Jhansi as such for want of opportunity of hearing and non-service of documents/charge sheet, he failed to submit his reply. The news items published in 'Dainik Aaj' dated 4.2.1997 is as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...;