Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural safeguards, including witness examination, and failure to do so renders penalties invalid.

JUDGMENT :

(J.J. Munir, J.)

This writ petition is directed against an order of the Chief General Manager, Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Lucknow dated 10.3.2016, punishing the petitioner with reduction to his basic scale, after disciplinary proceedings.

2. The petitioner is a retired employee of the Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation (for short, 'PCDF'), which is a State Government undertaking, funded and supported by the Government in the Ministry of Dairy Development. The petitioner appears to have joined the PCDF in the year 1985 on the post of an Accounts Assistant at District Varanasi as a regular employee. He put in more than thirty years' service before superannuating on 31.8.2017. At the time of his retirement, he was posted as an Accounts Assistant with the Cattle Feed Factory, PCDF, Ram Nagar, Varanasi. The petitioner says that he had an unblemished career until the fateful proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner on the 12th of August, 2013. He was suspended from service pending inquiry. An Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer served the petitioner with a charge-sheet, carrying a total of seven charges. The charge-sheet is one dated 9.11.2013 and comes up with allegations regarding financial irregularities in the organization, issuing a cheque on 20.6.2013, drawing on a bank account, where there were insufficient funds, as well as a charge about forging the signatures of the General Manager, Dairy Production Federation, Raibareli to pay off dues etc., leading to the petitioner's integrity not being certified and two increments withheld for two years.

3. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. He denied the charges, coming up with defence pleas. The Inquiry Officer, the petitioner alleges, without holding an inquiry in accordance with salutary procedure, submitted a report dated 30.1.2015, holding the charges proved. Amongst others, it is averred that no oral inquiry was held in the sense that no evidence of witnesses for the establishment was recorded in support of the charges. It is also alleged that the mandatory provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Dairy Federation Employees Service Regulations, 2010 (for short, 'the Regulations of 2010') were observed in breach, as also the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1985 (for short, 'the Regulations of 1985').

4. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 16.3.2015, which he answered by means of his reply dated 6.5.2015. The Chief General Manager, PCDF by his order dated 10.3.2016 proceeded to punish the petitioner, reducing him to the basic scale. For the period of suspension, he was denied salary, except the subsistence allowance, that he had received, but granted continuity in service. The petitioner says that due to incorrect advice, he submitted a representation/departmental appeal to the Managing Director, PCDF Limited, Lucknow, which does not lie for the class of penalty awarded to him under Regulation 88 read with Regulation 85(1) of the Regulations of 2010. It is also urged that the order impugned could not have been passed by the Chief General Manager, the Appointing Authority, without the prior approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in view of the embargo carried in Regulation 88 of the Regulations of 2010.

5. A notice of motion was issued on 6.11.2024, in answer to which a counter-affidavit was filed on 27.11.2024. This counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Chief General Manager, PCDF by the Managing Director.

6. Parties having exchanged affidavits, the petition was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. Orders were reserved.

7. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.D. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. S.C. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.

8. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, what