- (1.) HEARD Sri D. C. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to hear the matter fi nally. Petitioner, an employee of Pratapgarh Judgeship, being aggrieved by the orders dated 6-1-2005 passed by the District Judge, Pratapgarh and the appellate order dated 9-5-2007 has preferred the instant petition. Brief facts of the case are that the peti tioner, an employee of District Court, Pratapgarh, was also a member of Govern ment Employees Co-operative Societies Lim ited, Pratapgarh, a Society of Government employees working in different departments. The main object of the Society is to provide financial assistance to its members. The So ciety used to obtain loan from District Co operative Bank @ 13% per annum or as prevalent at the relevant time and then dis burse to its members on higher interest rates. It is said that on 13-6-2002, District Assis tant Registrar wrote a letter to the District Judge that the petitioner has committed ir regularities in depositing the amount of loan. On receipt of this letter, the District Judge enquired into the matter and thereafter, ap pointed Sri P. K. Jain, Additional District Judge as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner was that as Secretary of the Soci ety the petitioner has received loan amount by certain members, but the same was mis appropriated by him.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer in a very hasty manner concluded the enquiry without giving reason able opportunity of hearing as well as with out allowing to examine the witnesses. The alleged charge does not relate in any manner to discharge of official functions as it has nothing to do with the duties assigned to him as an employee of District Court. He further submitted that due procedure was not adopted in conducting the enquiry as is established from the fact that the complainant Dev Sharma was never examined by the enquiry officer nor the petitioner was given opportu nity to cross-examine him. Further, there was no charge against the petitioner that he has violated the Rule 3 of the U. P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), but the enquiry of ficer while submitting the enquiry report held that the petitioner has violated Rule 3 of the said Rules. On the other hand, Standing Counsel has submitted that a preliminary enquiry was con ducted against the petitioner on the basis of complaint sent by Dev Sharma, District As sistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. As the petitioner was found guilty, final enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the or der dated 20-10-2004. The enquiry officer served the charge sheet upon the petitioner and a date was fixed. As the petitioner failed to appear on the date fixed, the next dates, i.e. 16-11-2004 and 18-11-2004 were fixed, but the petitioner failed to appear before him and as such, the enquiry officer completed the enquiry. Thereafter, the District Judge issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, to which reply was submitted by the petitioner, but as the reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, the impugned order has been passed dismissing the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal which too was rejected. Therefore, there is no illegality in the dismissal of the petitioner from service and the orders have been passed after following due procedure of law.;