SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Satish Chandra Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of respondents though name of Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents-1, 2 and 3. Since it is an old matter of 2003, hence, I am not inclined to defer the matter and proceed to hear and decide this petition after hearing learned counsel for petitioner.
(2.) This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner Tribhuwan Nath Patel against order dated 14.06.2002 passed by Regional Administrative Committee Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Centralized Services, Allahabad affirming order dated 17.03.2001 passed by Member Secretary, District Administrative Committee Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Centralized Services, Allahabad, whereby service of petitioner has been terminated.
(3.) It is contended on behalf of petitioner that entire disciplinary proceedings are wholly illegal and in utter violation of principles of natural justice. A show-cause notice/charge-sheet was given to petitioner which was replied. Enquiry Officer submitted report and thereafter, order of punishment has been passed. No oral enquiry was ever conducted and major penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon petitioner without holding any oral enquiry, therefore, is illegal. Attention of Court was drawn to averments made in para 36 of writ petition reads as under :- "36. That the petitioner in the appeal pointed out that all the allegations made against him are false and are actuated by the malice of Shri Prabha Shanker Pandey who acted as an Enquiry Officer and also thereafter sat on judgment over the enquiry report given by him as member secretary. The petitioner pointed out as to how he had been denied fair play as inspite of his repeated request Shri Pandey was foisted as enquiry officer and the relevant record has also not shown to him. The petitioner further explained each and every allegation pointing out that all the allegations about embezzlement are false and no witness was examined in presence of the petitioner and he was never afforded any opportunity to cross examine them. The petitioner also showed that for payment made through the petitioner, all receipts and records had been completed by him. The petitioner also pointed out that other employee were responsible for any irregularity and no responsibility could be fastened on the petitioner." ;