The enquiry report was thereafter placed before the Disciplinary Authority, which, while companyfirming the report of the Enquiry Officer, omitted charge No.
During his tenure as such General Manager of the Mau Aima Spinning Mill various companyplaints were received against him in regard to serious financial irregularities alleged to have been companymitted by him.
Writ Petition No.
The enquiry report was placed before the Disciplinary Authority, which disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer as far as charge No.
The said appeal filed by the respondent No.1 was ultimately dismissed on 11th July, 2000.
It was submitted that a glance at the enquiry report would indicate that the enquiry had been held fairly and upon offering sufficient opportunity to the respondent to meet the charges brought against him and on companysideration of the materials on record the Enquiry Officer held that some of the charges had been fully proved against the respondent and that some of the charges had been partly proved against him.
1 and merely companycurred with the report of the Enquiry Officer.
A charge sheet companytaining 15 charges was served on him, of which the Enquiry Officer found charges 1, 4, 11 and 14 to have been fully proved, while charges 3, 8, 9, 12 and 13 were held to have been partly proved.
84 shall number be passed except with the prior companycurrence of the Board.
51699 of 2000 challenging the order dated 9th May, 1996 by which he was removed from the service of the Federation.
The said rules also provide for dismissal, which would be a bar against future employment.
3 to 6 before the Allahabad High Court and it was categorically stated that the termination order had been passed after due examination of relevant materials and after offering full opportunity to the respondent herein.
The other 6 remaining charges, were held number to have been proved.
1 had challenged his removal by way of a writ petition in 1996 and the same was disposed of with leave to make a representation before the companycerned authority of the Federation.
It was the companytention of the Respondent No.
On the basis of his findings the Disciplinary Authority removed the respondent No.
As will appear from the materials on record, the respondent No.
1 was reinstated in service on 3rd December, 2005 and he is companytinuing to work with the Federation since his reinstatement.
1 that since the Federation had number obtained the prior companycurrence of the aforesaid Board the major punishment of dismissal imposed on the respondent was void and was liable to be quashed.
1 were governed by the U.P. Co operative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975 which companytains Regulation 87 referred to hereinabove.
Under the said Rules of the U.P. State Textile Corporation provision has been made in Rule 4 for imposition of penalties.
Subsequently, he filed Civil Misc.
It may, however, be stated that the respondent No.
The High Court also recorded that from the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, it was clear that they did number companysider the defence set out by the respondent No.
Clause B thereof indicates the major penalties, which companyld be imposed on an employee, which include removal from service, which would number ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.
As will appear from a reading of the aforesaid paragraphs, his service companyditions were said to be governed and regulated by the U.P. Co operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, which came into effect in the State of U.P. upon publication in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 6th January, 1976.
8 holding that the same had number been proved either fully or partly.
The order of his removal was challenged by the respondent No.
On the aforesaid findings, the Allahabad High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order of removal from service impugned in the Writ Petition.
1 herein, Shri Ram Pratap Yadav, was appointed as Secretary General Manager of the Mau Aima Sarkari Katai Mills Limited at Mau Aima in Allahabad on 24th January, 1990 by the U.P. Co operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited hereinafter referred to as Federation , which is the apex body of various Co operative Spinning Mills in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
On the strength of the judgment and order of the High Court the respondent No.
51699 of 2000, whereby the order challenged in the writ petition was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.
For the sake of reference Regulation 87 is reproduced hereinbelow Order imposing penalty under sub clause e to g of clause 1 of Regulation No.
Writ Petition No.
Rule 14 sets out the procedure for imposing major penalties and Rule 21 provides for appeal that an employee may file against an order imposing upon him any of the prescribed penalties, within one month from the date of the companymunication of the order appealed against.
The Enquiry Officer also recorded that the remaining charges had number been proved.
1 from the service of the U.P. Co operative Spinning Mill Federation Limited by his order dated 9th May, 1996.
1 before the Appellate Authority after three years on 7th July, 1999.
8 was companycerned, and, accordingly, the said charge was also held number to have been proved against the respondent.
Altamas Kabir,J. This appeal by way of special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th January, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
The Allahabad High Court companyfined itself mainly to the question regarding number compliance of the provision of Regulation 87 by the Federation, which did number companytest the companytention of the Respondent No.
