Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and examination of evidence, as mandated by applicable regulations.

JUDGMENT :

Brij Raj Singh, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

“I) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or likewise quashing the impugned order of punishment dated 10.01.2005 passed by the respondent no.2 contained in Annexure No.8.

II) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or likewise commanding the respondent nos.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits.”

2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant in the year 1976 in the U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited (for short “Federation”) and after completion of probation period satisfactorily, he was confirmed on the said post in 1978. After completion of twelve years of continuous and satisfactory service, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Godown Keeper in 1988. Services of the petitioner and employees of Cooperative Societies are governed by the Regulations known as “U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975” (for short “Regulations, 1975”) and these guidelines were framed by the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board and approved by His excellency the Governor of the State. In 1996, the petitioner was transferred as Store In-charge in the office of opposite party no.3 at Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. On 19.04.2003, charge sheet containing two charges, has been issued to the petitioner requiring him to file his reply/explanation within fifteen days. Since the petitioner failed to submit reply, enquiry report has been submitted by the enquiry officer on 16.10.2003 holding guilty of the charges levelled against him. It is mentioned that in September, 1998, a rack of fertilizer of IFFCO Urea was received, which was badly damaged due to rain at the railway siding and after weighment, delivery was taken and a shortage of 16.475 Metric Tonnes was reported and it was recorded in the record. Thereafter, in December, 2000, new bags were provided by the IFFCO for the purpose of re-bagging of the stock, which was kept in store in September, 1998 in a very bad condition. As per the direction of opposite party no.3, re-bagging was done in presence of local representative of the depositor from 28.12.2000 to 25.01.2001 and a difference of 26.681 Metric Tonnes was noticed. It is mentioned in charge sheet that for the aforesaid difference, an amount of Rs.1,55,498.50 has been deducted by the depositor from the bills of the Federation.

4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that enquiry officer did not fix any date, time and place for holding the enquiry nor any witness was examined to prove the photocopies of certain papers referred/relied upon by the enquiry officer. On 12.05.2004, Managing Director, opposite party no.2, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing two punishments. On 02.07.2004, three days further time was granted to the petitioner to file his reply. However, on 13.08.2004 to the utter surprise of the petitioner, another show cause notice was issued by the Additional Managing Director and changed the proposed punishment illegally, arbitrarily and wholly without jurisdiction, that too on the basis of same evidence, material and without any new development. On 18.08.2004, petitioner was suspended and thereafter on 27.08.2004, he submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice and denied the charges and also the findings of the enquiry officer. On 10.01.2005, opposite party no.2 passed the impugned order without application of mind and even without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Regulation 85 of the Regulations, 1975 provides the procedure for holding disciplinary proceedings, which reads as under:-

"85. Disciplinary proceedings.---(i) The disciplinary proceedings against an employee shall be conducted by the Inquiring Officer [referred to in clause (iv) below] wit