The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fact-finding inquiry, adherence to principles of natural justice, and the distinction between criminal cases and departmental proceedings in cases of dismissal from service.

Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, Shir Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record.

2. By means of the respondent writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 24.5.1978 (Annexure No. 4) passed by opposite party No. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 20.10.1992 (Annexure No. 5) passed by opposite Party No. 1.

3. Facts in briefy of the present case as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner are to the effect that the petitioner was working on the post of Supervisor in U.P. Cooperative Union subsequently which is recognized as a Cooperative Federal Authority by the State Government. He submits that when petitioner was working on the said post, a show cause notice dated 7.1.1977 has been issued to him thereafter he was placed under suspension dated 15.5.1977. Subsequently the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 15.5.1997 and order of dismissal from service has been passed by opposite party No. 2 dated 24.5.1978. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which has also been dismissed by order dated 20.10.1992 (Annexure No. 5) hence the present with petition has been filed.

4. Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on following grounds : --

(a) that prior to passing of the impugned order no facts finding enquiry has been done as such the impugned order no facts finding enquiry had been done as such the impugned order of dismissal is illegal and arbitrary in nature and in contravention to law as well as principle of natural justice.

(b) in the same incidence the petitioner had been dismissed from service and has been acquitted by Criminal Court, a copy of said order had been filed by the petitioner as annexure No. 6 to the writ petition as such once the petitioner had been acquitted by the Criminal Court, there is no justification or reason on the part of the official respondent to dismiss the petitioner from service, hence the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties are illegal and arbitrary in nature, liable to be set aside.

5. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties in rebuttal submits that as a matter of fact and records, in the incidence in question a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner and further when the same was not received by him it was also published in the newspaper and in addition to the said facts a charge sheet has also sent to the petitioner through post but the same was not accepted and returned with endorsement as "bahar rahte hai ghar walo ka pata nahi" accordingly the Janpadiya Committee, Agra/enquiry committee submitted a recommendation to the competent authority of recriminating the services of the petitioner and keeping in view the said fact the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with the thereafter the appeal filed by him was dismissed by order dated 24.8.1992 by appellate authority.

6. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel further submits that as a matter of facts and records, the petitioner has taken a sum of ? 6500/- which belongs to Co-operative Society and out of which he has deposited as sum of ? 800/- only as such ? 5700/- is still to be deposited/recovered from his so there is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the impugned order of dismissal dated 24.5.2008 and appellate order dated 24.8.1992 hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The question on the point raised in argument by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case in the same incidence in which his services were dismissed then in that circumstances the action on the part of the official respondent thereby dismissing him form service is valid or not. The answer to the above said question had placed recent judgmen