Hon’ble Abdul Moin, J.—Heard Sri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudeep Seth, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of dismissal of the petitioner from service cum recovery contained in annexure 1.

Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits of service.

Issue such other writ, order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Allow this writ petition with cost.”

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that petitioner who was working as Secretary (Sachiv) in Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited, Tikri Agaganj, Vikas Khand Tarun, District-Faizabad is governed by the service rules namely U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralized Service Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “ Rules 1976”) which are applicable to all the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.2.1998 by Member Secretary. The petitioner had also been issued a charge-sheet on 31.1.1998 containing 13 charges. Copy of the charge-sheet dated 31.1.1998 is annexure 3 to the writ petition. By means of order dated 15.7.1998, the petitioner was informed that he should submit a reply to the charge-sheet by 23.7.1998 else in a meeting scheduled on 25.7.1998 of the District Administrative Committee (hereinafter referred to as “ Committee”), further decision would be taken. Copy of notice dated 15.7.1998 is annexure 4 to the writ petition. A press note was published on 19.7.1998 dated 17.7.1998 by the Member Secretary, District Administrative Committee, U.P. PACS Centralized Services, Faizabad informing seven persons including the petitioner that a meeting of the Committee has been called on 22.7.1998 at 5 P.M in the meeting room of the Collectorate and also informing the said persons to appear before the Committee and present their version failing which further decision would be taken. Copy of the press note as published on 19.7.1998 is annexure C7 to the counter-affidavit.

5. In pursuance of the said press note, the petitioner submitted a letter on 22.7.1998 informing that as he is unwell, accordingly he should be excused from attending on the said date. Copy of the letter dated 22.7.1998 is annexure 5 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with an order of dismissal from service dated 27.7.1998 informing him that as per the decision taken by the Committee on 22.7.1998, the petitioner was being dismissed from service and an amount of Rs. 1,31,887.80 and 26,861.95 is to be recovered from him. The dismissal order further reads that the petitioner had been suspended on 19.2.1998 on account of financial irregularities and that an Inquiry Officer had been appointed to enquire into the said charges. The Inquiry Officer had sent the charge-sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner was informed through press note dated 17.7.1998 that he should appear before the Committee to submit his response but he failed to appear and submit any reply. Consequently, on the basis of the inquiry report, the petitioner has been found guilty of embezzlement and of the charges leveled against him and thus seeing the gravity of the charges, it was decided in the meeting of the Committee held on 22.7.1998 to dismiss him from service and to recover the aforesaid amount. Copy of the dismissal order dated 27.7.1998 is annexure 1 to the writ petition.

6. The petitioner contends that at no stretch of time, the inquiry report was ever made available to him despite the fact that reliance has been placed upon the said inquiry report while passing the impugned dismissal order. The petitioner further contends that it was incumbent upon the Inquiry Offic