ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dated 5-9-2001 whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been upset.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent was appointed as a Cooperative Supervisor in the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federal Authority. He was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings initiated against him under Section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). After the inquiry officer submitted his report, a resolution was passed on 21-12-1993, to dispense with the services of the respondent and to recover the amount from him under Section 68 of the Act. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 20-1-1994, his services were terminated, preceded by a notice on the proposed punishment. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The learned Single Judge, after threadbare consideration of the submissions made by the respondent, dismissed the writ petition. We may mention here that the only contention raised in the writ petition was the violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no notice was purported to have been given to him affording an opportunity to explain his case. This contention was repelled by the learned Single Judge that sufficient notices were sent to him by registered post by the appellant but he failed to appear before the disciplinary authority. The learned Single Judge also noticed that on 10-7-1993 the respondent did not appear. Notices were also published in Dainik Jagran newspaper on 2-10-1993, 9-10-1993 and 28-11-1993. The respondent also moved as many as three applications on 13-7-1993, 2-10-1993 and 28-11-1993. From the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, it appears that sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the respondent. Having failed to avail the opportunity, the respondent now is not permitted to turn back to say that no opportunity has been afforded to him.

3. The Division Bench of the High Court upset the order passed by the learned Single Judge mainly on two grounds. Firstly, no notice of proposed punishment has been given to the respondent. This finding is demolished by notice dated 13-7-1993. From the aforesaid notice, it is clear that the respondent was put to notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service. It appears that the respondent did not give a reply to the aforesaid notice. Therefore, the first ground on which the Division Bench upset the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. The second ground on which the Division Bench upset the order of the learned Single Judge is that, under Section 68 of the Act, there is no provision to order dismissal or removal of the respondent. While it is true that under Section 68 of the Act, there is no such provision but the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, in fact, the order of dismissal was passed under Regulation 68 and not under Section 68 of the Act. The learned counsel has also taken us to the provisions of Regulation 68 of the Cooperative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976. A reading of Regulation 68, which is annexed to the additional affidavit filed by the appellant, would clearly show that it empowers the authority to impose major punishment like dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. It appears from the facts and circumstances of this case that the authority was confused between Section 68 of the Act and Regulation 68. Be that as it may, a reading of the notice on proposed punishment dated 13-7 -1993 clearly shows that the proposed punishment on the respondent appears to have been passed under Regulation 68 and not under Section 68 of the Act, although the impugned order mentions Section 68 of the Act.

4. Regarding affording an opportunity to the respondent, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench in