Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard Sri Apoorva Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel represented opposite party No. 3.

2. The U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) through its Secretary was not impleaded at the initial stage but has come to be impleaded as opposite party No. 2 at a later stage. The record on being summoned in relation to the approval granted by the Board was produced before the Court and was examined within the scope of Regulation 87 of U.P. Cooperative Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Service Regulations’).

3. Whether the rule of preponderance of probabilities and petitioner allegedly having failed to prove any prejudice caused to him out of the violations alleged, would justify the imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service by the disciplinary authority upon him or the ambit of the principles of natural justice on