JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Heard Sri Uma Kant appearing for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.
2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.4.1988 by which after a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service by the Additional Registrar (Administration). Co-operative Societies, U. P., Lucknow ; and has further prayed for a direction not to give effect to the order of dismissal till the enquiry against the Secretary and Branch Manager of the Co-operative Bank is concluded,
3. Brief facts giving rise to this case are, that petitioner was appointed as A.D.O. Co-operative Development Block-Rasra, When he was posted at Mirpur, district Mirzapur, a disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge-sheet dated 23.6.1986 was served upon him. He was charge-sheeted for committing financial irregularities. The District Co-operative Bank had sanctioned a credit limit of Rs. 25,000 for Public Distribution System and for consumption. The petitioner was charged for giving fresh credits before taking care to deposit previous outstanding loans. The second, third and fourth charges were also similar with regard to different centres. Charge No. 6 was with regard to failure of verification of the balance accounts and stock, with the societies, and Charge No. 8 related to failure of the petitioner to secure the cash deposits of Rs. 10,000 as security Fiedility Insurance of Rs. 10,000 and securing guarantees of Rs. 5,000 each of two different persons on notional Stamp Papers of Rs. 5 each. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 13.4.1987. He denied the charges. It was stated by him that the Secretary of the society was responsible for giving cheques and for deposit of previous advances. The Secretary continued to give advance in conspiracy with the salesman, which resulted into embezzlement for which the Secretary of the Society and the Branch Manager of Muirpur are responsible. In respect of Charge Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, he raised a similar defence and shifted the responsibility on the Secretary of the Society and the Branch Manager of the Centre, who kept him in dark about previous advance. With regard to Charge No. 7 it was stated that out of 8 societies, petitioner had inspected four societies as given in his reply. It was stated in the reply that the petitioner was not responsible for taking securities and guarantees.
4. The District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Muirpur was appointed as Inquiry Officer under the Punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Service read with Rule 55 of the C.C.A. Rules. The petitioner was reinstated on 19.11.1985 without prejudice to the departmental proceedings. An inquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer found the explanation to be unsatisfactory. Petitioner was responsible for securing advance before giving fresh credits. It was found that the explanation of the petitioner that he had reminded and warned Secretaries of the Society and Branch Managers was not found sufficient as he had not taken any action against them. It was found that due to his negligence the society had given advance without securing earlier credits and thus department suffered losses. The Disciplinary Authority concluded that the petitioner was grossly negligent in performance of his duties causing serious financial irregularities and the chances of embezzlement by the society. Accordingly, the petitioner, who was working as Inspector Grade-II was dismissed from service.
5. Counsel for petitioner states that there was no charge of misappropriation. No inquiry was held against Secretaries, Salesmen and Branch Managers and that the Inquiry Officer had recommended only minor punishment. There was every possibility that the Secretary of the Society as well as Branch Managers were responsible and that the punishment was being given without taking prior concurrence under Regulation 7 of the U. P. Co-operative Employees Service Regulation, 1975.
6. In the counter-affidavit, Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, Deputy Registrar (Writ) Co-operative Society, U. P. has stated that the Societies misappropriated the amount, on account of the petitioner's negligence who did not ensure that the previous credits were deposited before giving fresh advances. Orders for supply were given beyond their sanction limits, and that the petitioner deliberately with mala fide intention, allowed the society to draw fresh credits. It was his duty to inspect the accounts of the society and to insist for securities and guarantees. The Inquiry Officer, proposed three punishments, namely depriving petitioner from any allowance in addition to the suspension allowance, withholding increment for five years and a adverse entry. The Disciplinary Authority has, however, found that the charges were serious and thus directed that the petitioner be dismissed from service. In para 13 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that there is no such condition in C.C.A. Rules that the disciplinary authority cannot give a punishment higher than the punishment proposed by the Inquiry Officer.
7. The principles of natural justice require that where a punishment higher than the punishment proposed by the Inquiry Officer, on the findings recorded by the delinquent officer is proposed by the disciplinary authority, a show cause notice must be given to him proposing to defer with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and to give an opportunity to the delinquent employee to show cause as to why higher punishment may not be awarded. The impugned order shows that the copy of the inquiry report was sent by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority by his letter No. 2284-85/Estt. dated 6.9.1987. The Disciplinary Authority found that all the charges were proved against the petitioner, and that a fresh show cause notice was issued to him on 22.12.1987 proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Petitioner submitted his reply to the notice on 30.1.1988 and requested for personal hearing. The request was accepted and that on 25.3.1988 petitioner appeared in person. He stated that the Secretary of the Samiti used to produce the cheque book on which he used to sign, and that he had given instructions in writing to the Secretary and Branch Manager not to exceed the credit limits but they did not give any attention to it and that the irregularities were committed without his knowledge. The Disciplinary Authority considered his reply and gave instructions to proceed against Secretary and Branch Manager by his letter dated 5.3.1988. It was found that there were balance of Rs. 31,561 as against Kirbil Lamp Society, Rs. 43,631.57 against Muirpur Lamp Society and Rs. 30,760.98 as against Sango Bandh Society and that these outstanding are only on account of negligence of the petitioner who went on signing cheques without ensuring the deposit of previous amount and on failing to keep effective control over the society. He also failed to inspect and take appropriate steps.
8. On the aforesaid facts, I find that the petitioner was given adequate and full opportunity to defend himself. He was given a second show cause notice proposing a punishment higher than the punishment proposed by the Inquiry Officer. The order was passed by the Competent Authority after discussing the evidence and giving fresh opportunity to the petitioner to appear before him. The punishment awarded is not disproportionate to the charges.
9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere, with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.