Hon’ble Akhtar Husain Khan, J.—Present petition has been filed by petitioner, Virendra Kumar Gupta, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers :

(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the impugned order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited (“PCF”) contained in Annexure 1 to the petition alongwith orders/actions incidental and consequential thereto.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the impugned letter dated 12.1.2009 claimed to have been issued by the Secretary, U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board (“Board”) communicating to the PCF the concurrence of the Board for petitioner’s dismissal from service and also set aside the order or decision of the Board giving the said concurrence, if any, after summoning the record from the PCF and the Board or otherwise.

(III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the PCF, its authorities, officers and all concerned to allow the petitioner to continue with his service with the PCF and perform his duties, alongwith all incidental and consequential benefits of continuous service including full back wages, free from any adverse effect of impugned order dated 4.2.2009 (supra) or the related actions, departmental or otherwise, declaring the said actions to be a nullity and void ab initio.

(IV) Award cost in favour of the petitioner.

Parties have exchanged affidavits.

2. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that vide impugned order dated 4.2.2009 annexure-1 to the petition passed by Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited; opposite party No. 2, petitioner has been awarded penalty of dismissal from service alongwith penalty of recovery of Rs. 17,52,464.58/-, the amount of pecuniary loss alleged to have been caused by petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 is applicable on opposite party No. 2 and regulation 84 of said Regulations provides that only one of penalties prescribed in it may be awarded to the employee, who has committed breach of duty enjoined upon him or has been convicted for criminal offence or an offence under Section 103 of the Act or does anything prohibited by said Regulation. Therefore, two penalties awarded by opposite party No. 2, is contrary to provisions of said Regulation 84.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the impugned order dated 4.2.2009 has been passed in violation of provisions of regulation 85 of said Regulations as well as principle of natural justice without proper opportunity of hearing and enquiry.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that neither the petitioner was furnished relevant documents during enquiry nor he was permitted to produce witnesses in his defence.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that penalty awarded to petitioner is too harsh and excessive.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon following pronouncements :

(1) U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and others, (1999) 1 SCC 741.

(2) Supriyo Basu and others v. W.B. Housing Board and others, (2005) 6 SCC 289.

(3) Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, (2002) 5 SCC 111.

(4) Gurcharan Singh v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, H.P. and others, (2005) 7 SCC 565.

(5) Binny Ltd. and another v. V. Sadasivan and others, (2005) 6 SCC 657.

(6) Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed and others, (2004) 4 SCC 460.

(7) Writ Petition No. 297 (SB) of 2000 S.R. Tyagi v. ‘ Principal Secretary to Government of U.P. and others.

(8) Radha Charan Sharma v. U.P. Co-operative Federation and others, 1982 UPLBEC 89.

(9) Navjiwan Kisan Interm