The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a show cause notice when proposing a punishment higher than that proposed by the Inquiry Officer.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Uma Kant appearing for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.

( 2 ) PETITIONER has prayed for quashing the order dated 21. 4. 1988 by which after a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service by the Additional Registrar (Administration ). Co-operative Societies, U. P. , Lucknow ; and has further prayed for a direction not to give effect to the order of dismissal till the enquiry against the Secretary and Branch Manager of the co-operative Bank is concluded,

( 3 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this case are, that petitioner was appointed as A. D. O. Co-operative development Block-Rasra, When he was posted at Mirpur, district Mirzapur, a disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge-sheet dated 23. 6. 1986 was served upon him. He was charge-sheeted for committing financial irregularities. The District Co-operative Bank had sanctioned a credit limit of Rs. 25,000 for Public Distribution System and for consumption. The petitioner was charged for giving fresh credits before taking care to deposit previous outstanding loans. The second, third and fourth charges were also similar with regard to different centres. Charge No. 6 was with regard to failure of verification of the balance accounts and stock, with the societies, and Charge No. 8 related to failure of the petitioner to secure the cash deposits of Rs. 10,000 as security Fiedility Insurance of Rs. 10,000 and securing guarantees of rs. 5,000 each of two different persons on notional Stamp Papers of Rs. 5 each. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 13. 4. 1987. He denied the charges. It was stated by him that the Secretary of the society was responsible for giving cheques and for deposit of previous advances. The Secretary continued to give advance in conspiracy with the salesman, which resulted into embezzlement for which the Secretary of the Society and the Branch Manager of muirpur are responsible. In respect of Charge Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, he raised a similar defence and shifted the responsibility on the Secretary of the Society and the Branch Manager of the Centre, who kept him in dark about previous advance. With regard to Charge No. 7 it was stated that out of 8 societies, petitioner had inspected four societies as given in his reply. It was stated in the reply that the petitioner was not responsible for taking securities and guarantees.

( 4 ) THE District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Muirpur was appointed as Inquiry officer under the Punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Service read with Rule 55 of the c. C. A. Rules. The petitioner was reinstated on 19. 11. 1985 without prejudice to the departmental proceedings. An inquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer found the explanation to be unsatisfactory. Petitioner was responsible for securing advance before giving fresh credits. It was found that the explanation of the petitioner that he had reminded and warned Secretaries of the Society and Branch Managers was not found sufficient as he had not taken any action against them. It was found that due to his negligence the society had given advance without securing earlier credits and thus department suffered losses. The disciplinary Authority concluded that the petitioner was grossly negligent in performance of his duties causing serious financial irregularities and the chances of embezzlement by the society. Accordingly, the petitioner, who was working as Inspector Grade-II was dismissed from service.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for petitioner states that there was no charge of misappropriation. No inquiry was held against Secretaries, Salesmen and Branch Managers and that the Inquiry Officer had recommended only minor punishment. There was every possibility that the Secretary of the society as well as Branch Managers were responsible and that the punishment was being given without taking prior concurrence under Regulation 7 of the U. P. Co-o