Dismissal from service requires prior concurrence of the Institutional Service Board, and failure to obtain this renders the dismissal invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.-Heard Shri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abhishek Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 5.

2. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order of punishment which is in the nature of dismissal from service of the petitioner from the Cooperative Society concerned. This order was passed on 5.1.2011 holding the petitioner to be guilty for remaining absent from duty without leave. Thus, petitioner has been found guilty of misconduct by virtue of his unauthorized absence from duty, accordingly, as the order impugned says, petitioner was proceeded with under the relevant regulations, namely U.P. Cooperative Society Employees Service Regulations, 1975 to impose the appropriate penalty/punishment as prescribed for under Regulation 84 of the said Regulations. It is recorded in the impugned order that the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow had accorded its approval/concurrence to the proposed action dismissing the petitioner from service while he was absent from service. At the time of punishment petitioner was working as Clerk cum Cashier with the Co-operative Society in its branch at Ghatampur.

3. The argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that any penalty which is of removal/dismissal from service as prescribed for under Regulation 84, would be imposed only by following procedure prescribed for under Regulation 85 and the concurrence/approval of the Board under Regulation 87. He submits that the penalty of removal from service and dismissal from service are prescribed under sub-clauses F and G of clause-1 to Regulation 84.

4. It is argued that Institutional Service Board did not accord its concurrence or approval as contemplated under Regulation 87, instead misinterpreting the provisions as contained under Regulation 84(1) the Institutional Service Board, it is argued, has completely misconstrued the said provision and has further confused it with Regulation 84 (2) (d) of the 1975 Regulations.

5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner by Shri Khan that provisions as contained under Regulation 84 only prescribed for punishment and penalties whereas Regulation 85 prescribed for disciplinary proceedings to be drawn and the procedure for conducting such disciplinary proceedings but Regulation 87 puts a fetter upon the power of the Society in inflicting punishment in the nature of removal or dismissal from service without seeking concurrence/approval of the Institutional Service Board. He argues that the provisions as contained under Regulation 85 (2) (b) only entitle the competent authority to proceed in a summary manner in the event an employee is found to be absconding from duty and to that extent there will be no quarrel about the procedure adopted, but upon the question of competence to impose punishment, it would be a consequential order to the disciplinary proceedings drawn. Regulation 87 is quite specific and unequivocal in the terminology used in prescribing powers of the committee. It is thus, submitted that the order passed by the competent authority/disciplinary authority is absolutely unsustainable.

6. Shri Abhishek Mishra, learned Advocate, on the contrary has sought to urge that looking to the language of Regulation 85 (2) (b), as contained under the Regulation, 1975, it is clear that this regulation is an exception to what is contained under Regulation 85(1). He has argued that if the employee himself has absconded and has not been reporting to duty, this would be akin to abandonment of service and would, therefore, not cast any obligation upon the disciplinary authority to hold regular enquiry and since there was an indictment of petitoner under a regular enquiry, the competent authority would be taken to have sufficient power and competence to dismiss such an employee from service. In such circumstances, the provisions as cont