R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who was an employee in Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Sakardaha, Block Harraiya District Basti (herein after referred to as the Society), was appointed as officiating cadre Secretary of another Society viz., Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Khamaria Vikas Khand Parashurampur District Basti vide orders dated 7-6-1986 and 8-5-1988 The District Administrative Committee passed a resolution on 26th May, 1989 suspending him. The District Assistant Registrar, who is Member-Secretary of the said Committee, passed another order dated 7-7-1989 directing reversion of the petitioner from the pest of officiating Secretary on the ground that the petitioner has mis appropriated a sum of Rs. 3,48,554.56. By the said order the Assistant Registrar also directed the Society in which the petitioner was appointed as Accountant sales man to terminate his service forthwith. Pursuant to the direction of the Assistant Registrar the Society passed order dated 7-1-1990 terminating petitioner's service. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking the following reliefs : "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 7-1-1990 and 7-7-1989 passed by the respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuance of service. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner. (d) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (e) award costs of the petition to the petitioner."
(2.) While entertaining this writ petition this Court passed an interim order dated 30-1-1990 staying the operation of the order of termination of service dated 7-1-1990. Letter on this Court passed another interim order dated 23-12-1990 issuing interim mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner or show-cause. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the said orders have not been acted upon by the respondents.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the Society. The petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. However, no counter-affidavit has been filed by any other respondents.;