- (1.) HEARD Shri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents, while the names of Shri N.K. Seth, Km. Vishwa Mohini and Shri Vimal Kumar have been shown in the cause list nor there is any request of pass­ing over the case.
(2.) THIS Special Appeal has been filed chal­lenging the judgment and order dated 1-2-2000, by means of which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 and has quashed the order of discharge/termination of services dated 13-7-1985, passed by the Secretary/General Manager of District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Shahjahanpur with all consequen­tial benefits. The order further directs that the respondent No. 1 shall be treated to have con­tinued in service as if, there was no order of discharge/termination and shall also be en­titled to salary and service benefits. The question involved in the Special Appeal is, whether an employee of Co-opera­tive Society can be discharged by an order of termination after expiry of period of probation, though his services were not terminated dur­ing the period of probation or the extended period of probation and thus he remained in service, even after the maximum period of pro­bation prescribed and he became entitled to be confirmed or could be deemed to have been confirmed in terms of Regulation 17(ii) and (iii) of U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Ser­vice Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations of 1975). In other words, can such an employee only be ousted from service by holding a departmental enquiry on the ground of misconduct and not by an order of discharge simpliciter.
(3.) THE respondent in this case was ap­pointed as a Class-IV employee on the post of helper in District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Shahjahanpur vide order dated 19-1-1983 and he was placed on probation on 24-1-1983. The initial period of probation as given in Regu­lation 17 (i) of the Regulations 1975 is one year which can be extended for another maxi­mum period of one year under the proviso. The respondent No.1 remained in service for more than the maximum period of probation as prescribed above and he was discharged from service by an order dated 13-7-1985, though his term of probation ended on 23-1-1985.;