S.K. Phaujdar J. - (1.) The above two matters were heard together at length on the point o\ admission and all the points in controversy having been agitated and argued, the matters are being finally disposed by this judgment.
(2.) Jai Ram Singh, the petitioner in both the said petitioners, had been working as store keeper in Banda Central Consumer Co-operative Stores Ltd. which is said to be a Central Co-operative, and, according to the petitioner, his service conditions are governed by the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees" Service Regulations, 1975. The employers in further lines of this judgment would be described as the 'consumer stores' and the Regulations relied upon by the petitioner would be referred in short as the "Regulations of 1975". The respondents had taken an objection in these petitions that the law applicable to the service conditions of the petitioner are those contained in the set of Rules framed in 1979 and the same would be described as the "Rules of 1979" in further lines of this judgment.
(3.) In the first mentioned writ petition, an order dated 1-5-1996 recorded by the President of the Co-operative Stores was challenged end through this letter the petitioner was suspended Spending a disciplinary enquiry. Subsequently, the prayer in this writ petition was amended together with amended averments and grounds, and through these subsequent amendments a transfer order following the suspension was challenged. In the first mentioned writ petition it was the plea of the petitioner that under the Regulations of 1975 the appointing authority was the Committee of Management or any other authority empowered under the said Regulations or by the bye-laws of the Society and as per the bye-laws the Secretary/Managing Director had been authorised to discharge the functions of the Managing Committee. The petitioner was appointed under an order of the Secretary of the Consumer Stores and was subsequently confirmed in his post as a Store keeper. It was alleged that the President of the Consumer Stores had made certain illegal appointments and one of the appointees was his son-in-law. These irregularities were allegedly brought to the notice of the District Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies at Banda by the present petitioner, and thereby he earned ?the displeasure of the President. The President, thereafter, made illegal orders of transfer in respect of Class IV employees, namely, Asha Ram and Kailash Singh, and a notice of the transfer order was given to the present petitioner as also to one Ram Raj Singh in their capacity as Store Keepers in two different depots with a direction that they should relieve the Class IV employees working under them, in terms of the aforesaid order. It is stated in the writ petition that the Secretary of the Consumer Stores had further directed that Kailash Singh was to submit his joining report at Tendurari (where the petitioner had been working) and the petitioner was directed to accept the joining of Kailash Singh and to relieve Asha Ram already working there. Kailash Singh however, never submitted his joining report to the petitioner and, accordingly, the petitioner could not abide by the direction. Kailash Singh made a false complaint that the petitioner was not accepting his joining report. Thereafter, the President directed the petitioner to submit his explanation failing which he was threatened with suspension. Immediately, the petitioner relieved Asha Ram and informed the President. Inspite thereof, the President mala fide recorded a transfer order directing the petitioner to report to the headquarters at Kapra Godam. In pursuance to this order the petitioner took charge at the headquarters at Kapra Godam Even thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension under the orders of the President dated 1-5-96 alleging that he had failed to comply with the orders passed earlier. The petitioner asserted that there was no refusal or failure on his part to comply with the orders and on facts he was not liable to be suspended. He took a further plea that the suspension order could not have been passed by the President as only the appointing authority could have done it and it was the Committee of Management or a person authorised by it by a resolution or by any bye-law.;