- (1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. Petitioner Ram Autar Vcrma was serving as Secretary of Faridpur Sabji Sadhan Sahkari Samiti. He was a member of Centralised Service and his services were governed by U. P. Primary Agricultural Co- operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). He was suspended from service on 25. 6. 1988 on serious charges. A charge-sheet was served on him on 25. 11. 1989. He submitted his reply to this charge-sheet on 24. 12. 1990. One Shri K. N. Mishra, Branch Manager was appointed Inquiry Officer, who sub mitted his report on 8. 3. 1991. Out of 21 charges, 20 charges were found proved against petitioner. District Administrative Committee, respondent No. 1, perused the inquiry report and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 6-5-1991 as to why petitioner may not be dismissed from service. Along with this show cause notice, a copy of the inquiry report dated 8-3-1991 and resolution of the District Administra tive Committee, dated 1-4-1991 were also served. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 20-6-1991' After receipt of the reply of petitioner, the District Administrative Committee held meet ings on 30-7-1991 and 5-10-1991. However, as petitioner failed to appear, 25-11-1991 was fixed as the next date. On this date, petitioner appeared. He was heard by the Committee. The Committee resolved that petitioner may be dismissed from service. On 9-12-1991 petitioner was accordingly dismissed. Thereafter he filed appeal before the Regional Administrative Committee. The appeal was dismissed on 8-2-1993. Both the aforesaid orders were challenged in a writ petition before this Court which was allowed on 18-2-1993 and the order of the appellate authority was set aside on the ground that appellate authority had not given reasons for dismissing the appeal. The appellate authority was required to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Liberty was also given to petitioner to raise fresh grounds. The order of this Court dated 18-2-1993 has been filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. In pur suance of the direction of this Court the appellate authority, Regional Administra tive Committee, held its meeting on 5-6-1993. Petitioner appeared before the appel late authority and was heard personally. The appellate authority again resolved that ap peal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly in pursuance of the resolution, order dated 19-6-1993 was passed dismissing the appeal of petitioner, aggrieved by which this peti tion has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Shri V. M. Sahai, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri M. S. Negi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the orders on the following grounds: Firstly, that inquiry was illegally entrusted to a person who was equal in rank to petitioner whereas the inquiry ought to have been entrusted to an Officer of the higher rank and on account of this illegality, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. Under Regulation 59 of U. P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Services Regulations, 1978, petitioner was entitled for an opportunity to produce evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses in his defence and also for an opportunity of being heard in person which has not been given to him and for this reason also the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. The proceedings are in violation of the provisions contained in Regulations 59. It has also been argued that inquiry bas been done behind the back of petitioner. In the impugned orders the explanation of petitioner has not been considered and suf ficient reasons have not been given. Reliance has been placed in case of Gur Dayal Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and others reported in A. I. R. 1979 S. C. p. 1622. Shri M. S. Negi, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has been af forded full opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings. However, he never claimed to adduce any evidence in support of his defence at any stage. In his reply he has not claimed to cross-examine any witness or to examine any witness in support of his defence. In fact, the charges against pensioner were based on mainly documen tary evidence and petitioner claimed ex amination of the documents which he was allowed. The Inquiry Officer in his presence allowed petitioner full opportunity to ex amine all the documents relied on against him. It was only after examination of the documents that he submitted his reply and in his reply he did not claim either cross-ex amination of any witness or examination of any person as his witness. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, District Ad ministrative Committee and the Regional Administrative Committee are based on material on record. The findings are on questions of fact which do not suffer from any illegality. Petitioner has been rightly dismissed from service for the serious char ges of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds of the Society and no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. After the order of this Court dated 8-2- 1993, appellate authority has recorded valid reasons. The orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated below, we do not find any merit in this petition. The first submission of learned counsel for petitioner was against the ap pointment of the Enquiry Officer of equal rank, h may be a noticed at the outset that no prejudice or even embarrassment has been claimed by petitioner by holding in quiry against him. There is no rule or regulation governing service of the petitioner oi: which makes it ooiigatory that inquiry must be held by an Officer of higher rank than the delinquent. The ultimate decision is taken by the appointing authority. The rule that order of punishment should not be passed by an authority lower in rank than the ap pointing authority cannot be extended in the case of appointment of an Inquiry Of ficer. Inquiry Officer is appointed by the appointing authority and in the present case a Branch Manager of the Society was entrusted this job. In our opinion, there was no illegality involved and" this submission does not require any serious consideration in absence of any prejudice caused to the petitioner.;