The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the disciplinary authority to act in accordance with the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the dismissal order dated June 18, 2008, show-cause notice dated May 16, 2008, enquiry report dated May 12, 2008 and charge sheet dated December 28, 2007.

The Facts:-

2. Some of the relevant facts are, a show cause notice dated September 14, 2007 was issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation in relation to his alleged absence from duty at Raipur Unit, as also non maintenance of the attendance register. It is the case of the petitioner that a reply to the show cause notice dated September 24, 2007 was filed denying the allegations. Vide another Office Memorandum dated October 9, 2007, petitioner was called upon to explain his alleged commission of misconduct by remaining absent unauthorisedly from the duty. Vide his reply dated October 30, 2007, the petitioner held out assurance of discharging of his duties at Raipur Unit. A charge sheet dated December 28, 2007 was served upon the petitioner containing four Articles of Charge being;

(i) Disobey of Office Orders dated July 5, 2007, July 9, 2007 and July 15, 2007 violating Rule 47, Rule 44 and 33 (i) (b) & (c) of the FISHCOPFED Staff Regulations;

(ii) Unauthorised absence from duty violating Rule 15 (iii), 31, 32(2), 33 (i) (b) & (c), 43, 44(a) and (d) of the FISHCOPFED Staff Regulations;

(iii) Negligence of duty violating Rule 44(a), (b) & (g), Rule 33 (i), (a), (b) & (c) and Rule 33 (ii), (iii), (iv) of the FISHCOPFED Staff Regulations;

(iv) Insubordination and disobedience violating Rule 44(a) and (i) of the FISHCOPFED Staff Regulations.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted the written statement of defence dated January 8, 2008 denying the allegations contained in the charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer appointed vide letter dated February 4, 2008 informed the petitioner about the preliminary hearing to be held on February 21, 2008 and February 22, 2008 at Raipur. It is the case of the petitioner, the petitioner vide his letter dated February 12, 2008, addressed to the Enquiry Officer, he raised certain fundamental issues with regard to his functioning as the Enquiry Officer and expressed his inability in the proceedings because of non payment of salary with effect from July 2007. The petitioner would submit, that he appeared before the Enquiry Officer on February 22, 2008 and the Enquiry Officer refused to postpone the proceedings on the ground of non payment of salary and passed the order advising the petitioner to borrow money from his other sources. The petitioner, under protest, did not attend the proceedings on March 24, 2008 and March 25, 2008 and the Enquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer concluded the proceedings ex-parte and submitted his report dated May 12, 2008, wherein he had proved all the charges against the petitioner. Another show cause notice dated May 16, 2008 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his representation against the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated June 5, 2008. The petitioner’s case is, vide the impugned order dated June 18, 2008 issued under the signature of the President of the Board of Directors and the respondent No.3 i.e. the Managing Director, a penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner.

4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner would challenge the impugned orders by stating that the order of dismissal is unsustainable, as the same has been issued by an Authority not empowered to issue such orders under the provisions of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 by referring to Section 49 of the Act, which inter-alia states that; (i) the Board may exercise all such powers as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying out its function under the Act and; (ii) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such power shall include the power to appoint and remove a