DILIP GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who had been appointed as a Refrigeration Mechanic-cum-Operator in the Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation (hereinafter referred to as the ''Federation') which is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and posted at the Infant Milk Food Factory, Moradabad has sought the quashing of the order dated 1st November, 1989 passed by the Managing Director of the Federation as well as the consequential order dated 4th November, 1989 passed by the General Manager of Allahabad Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, Allahabad, by which he has been dismissed from service.
(2.) THE records of the writ petition indicate that while the petitioner was working at the aforesaid Milk Factory at Moradabad a charge sheet dated 20th June, 1984 containing one charge was served upon the petitioner mentioning therein that in the cash memo dated 3rd March, 1983 pertaining to the purchases made by him from Shanti Swarup Raj Kumar, Katra Anaj, Moradabad he had made interpolations by changing Rs.51.30 to Rs.61.30 and claimed the said higher amount and thereby embezzled Rs.10/-. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet mentioning therein that he had not made the purchases on 3rd March, 1983 and nor had he made any interpolations in the cash memo. He further stated that he had written "paid by me" on the instructions of his Superior Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 3rd June, 1985 and after a period of about 4 years a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.9.1989 requiring the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Upon receipt of the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner sent a reply dated 16th October, 1989 mentioning therein that not only the charges levelled against the petitioner were incorrect, but the documents were also not supplied to him and nor was oral evidence led before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner also sent a letter dated 17th October, 1989 for supplying a copy of the Enquiry Report. However, without giving any reply to the petitioner, the Managing Director passed an order on 1st November, 1989 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. This Court while entertaining this petition also granted an interim order on 23rd November, 1989 that the orders dated 1st November, 1989 and 4th November, 1989 shall remain stayed. Sri R.M. Saggi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from giving a copy of the charge sheet, no enquiry whatsoever was held by the respondents before dismissing the petitioner from service and in fact even a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner alongwith the show cause notice dated 28.9.1989. He has further submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service on the ground of embezzlement of Rs.10/- was highly disproportionate.
(3.) SRI G.D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, submitted that it was not necessary to supply a copy of the charge sheet upon the petitioner along with the show cause notice as the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, reported in AIR 1991 SC 471. He further submitted that the Enquiry Officer had held a proper enquiry and thereafter the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner and that the punishment was not disproportionate to the charges as the petitioner was involved in embezzlement. I have carefully considered to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. ;