JUDGMENT R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, and also perused the record.
2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certtorari quashing the order dated 23.7.90, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and the amount misappropriated by him was directed to be recovered from him.
3. Petitioner while working as Secretary of Sadhan Sahkarl Samiti, Manpur, block Bawan, district Hardoi misconducted himself, on the basis of which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Firstly the preliminary enquiry was conducted, in which petitioner was found prima facie guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, vide letter No. 345/Sahkari cadre dated 31.3.1990, the petitioner was communicated charge-sheet. He was required to file explanation within fifteen days, but no explanation was filed by him. Thereafter, another letter No. 434/Sahkari cadre dated 25.5.90 was served upon him giving him one more opportunity to submit reply of the charges levelled against him, within further fifteen days. Even then, no explanation was filed by the petitioner. It was on 2.7.90 that the petitioner appeared before the Committee. He has promised that he will hand over the full charge of the office of Secretary to the Incumbent and will also file explanation of the charge-sheet, although the decision to punish the petitioner was taken on 3.7.90 by the administrative committee but the Committee once again gave opportunity to the petitioner, to submit reply and to hand over charge. It was on 23.7.90 when neither the charge was handed over by the petitioner, nor reply of the charge-sheet was submitted by him. that the impugned order of dismissal was passed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that although no explanation of the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner, but it was obligatory for the respondents to conduct enquiry and to pass order of punishment after holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. It was submitted that in the present case no such enquiry was conducted. Therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to pass the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Sri C. H. Misra supported the validity of the impugned order. He has referred to Regulation 59 of the U. P. Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service. Regulations. 1978, and submitted that the procedure prescribed under the said Regulations, which are applicable in the present case, was fully followed and the impugned order was passed in accordance with the said Regulation. Writ petition was. therefore, liable to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
7. It is evident from the statement of facts made in the impugned order, that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to file his explanation of the charge-sheet and to produce evidence, if any, in support of his case ; but inspite of several opportunities afforded to him, neither the explanation was filed, nor any evidence was produced.
8. Regulation 59 (1) (iii) of the aforesaid Regulations, provides as under :
"59. (1) The disciplinary proceedings against a member shall be conducted by the Inquiring Officer, referred to in clause (b) below with due observance of the principles of natural justice for which it shall be necessary that :
(i) ..............................................
(ii) ....................................................
(ii) if no explanation in respect of the charge-sheet is received or the explanation submitted is unsatisfactory the competent authority may award appropriate punishment considered necessary.
9. In the present case, inquiry officer was appointed, who after conducting enquiry submitted report, on the basis of which charges were framed and the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was required to file his explanation regarding the charges, within fifteen days of the receipt of the charge-sheet. Within the said time, no explanation was filed. Petitioner was, thereafter, granted fifteen days more time to file his explanation. Even then, no explanation was filed. Charges levelled against the petitioner, therefore, remained unrebutted. Clause (iii) of sub-clause ID of Regulation 59 provides that if no explanation in respect of the charge-sheet is received or the explanation submitted is unsatisfactory, the competent authority may award appropriate punishment considered necessary.
10. In the present case, admittedly no explanation was filed in respect of the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner. Therefore, the competent authority had no option, but to pass the order of punishment as charges levelled against the petitioner remained unrebutted and the same shall be deemed to have been admitted by the petitioner. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to the contrary, therefore, cannot be accepted.
11. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out. Writ petition fails and is dismissed, with costs.