Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 23.2.2012 passed by the Respondent No. 1 as well as the order of dismissal dated 3.9.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 2 with a further prayer for issuance of a Mandamus to the Respondent No. 2 to pay salary and other allowances admissible to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.11.2004 alongwith consequential service benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a temporary ad hoc labourer in crushing season 1989-90 and was made permanent seasonal untrained labourer w.e.f. 1.1.1993. Since 1993-1994 the petitioner was entrusted with the job of weighment clerk at different out cane purchase centers of the respondent No. 2 and was given an Authority letter under Para 16-D of the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Order, 1954 (hereinafter to referred as “the Order of 1954”).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he worked regularly till the crushing season 2003-2004 as a weighment clerk and was transferred from place to place by the respondent No. 2, but was not given the admissible pay scale; nor he was issued the licence as required under Para 89 of the said Order of 1954.

4. Since the petitioner started demanding the pay scale as admissible to weighment clerks as per the Third Wage Board recommendations, the management of the respondent No. 2 got annoyed and decided to teach a lesson to the petitioner. On 15.12.2003, the weighing machine at the cane purchase center was found to be defective having a difference of 1.60 quintal per lorry and a complaint regarding the same was made in writing by the petitioner on 15.12.2003 in presence of the Assistant Manager (Purchase), Shri Jitendra Kumar. A copy of the complaint dated 15.12.2003 has been filed as Annexure - 2 to the writ petition.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the management of the respondent No. 2 issued an undated charge-sheet to the petitioner after the end of crushing season 2003-2004, showing a shortage of 1087.26 quintals of sugarcane alleging that the petitioner had purchased 49,105 quintals of sugarcane at different centers, but had only supplied 48,017.74 quintals of sugarcane to the Mill. It was alleged that the petitioner had caused financial loss to the Mill and a direction was issued asking him to submit his reply within 72 hours. This undated charge-sheet was received by the petitioner on 16.6.2004 and he submitted his reply to the same on 18.6.2004 saying that the shortage could have been due to different reasons viz. drying of sugarcane due to late loading of lorries, defective weighing machine of the Mill or due to pilferage en route.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that although an explanation was submitted by the petitioner through UPC, the respondent No. 2 denied the receipt of any explanation. One Satish Chandra Sharma, Manager (Legal) was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who is alleged to have written two letters dated 19.7.2004 and 5.8.2004 informing the petitioner about the inquiry proceeding and date and time fixed therein for hearing. Since the petitioner did not receive any of the letters alleged to have been sent to him, he did not appear in the inquiry and the inquiry proceeded ex parte and an inquiry report was submitted on 25.8.2004 on the basis of which the dismissal order dated 3.9.2004 was passed.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that the dismissal order dated 3.9.2004 was never served upon him and when he went to the Mill premises at the beginning of the crushing season 2004-2005, he was not allowed to join and therefore, he moved a representation. He received a letter dated 21.12.2004 from the respondent No. 2 directing him to deposit with the Mill Rs.583/- for the month of November, 2004 and Rs.3,498/- as arrears of the Policy premium w.e.f. May, 2004 to October, 2004, which arrears have been deposited by the Mill after making necessary deductions from the