1
Court No. 24
C. M. Application No. 90263 of 2009
in re:
Writ Petition No. 4830 (SS) of 1987
Shri Chandra Shekhar Shukla ... Petitioner
Versus
Registrar, Cooperative Societies
and others ... Opposite parties
----------
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and the order dated
4.8.2009 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original
number.
By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the
order of dismissal dated 28.2.1987.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned dismissal order is a non-speaking order and it does not
contain as to which of the charges levelled against the petitioners
were found to be serious due to which dismissal order warrants.
Resolution of meeting said to be held on 13.2.1987 indicates that
the enquiry proceedings in the matter were not complete and
even then, the services of the petitioners were terminated. No
opportunity to submit his stand of personal hearing was afforded
to the petitioner before inflicting major punishment of dismissal
on the petitioner. Even a temporary Government Servant or
employee of any public institution etc. cannot be dismissed
without service of one month’s notice or payment of one month’s
pay in lieu thereof, but the petitioner, who is a permanent
Government employee, has been dismissed from service without
service of notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice. Therefore,
the impugned dismissal order is liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that
2
the Additional District Cooperative Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri,
namely, Shri Girish Chandra Srivastava was appointed as Enquiry
Officer to conduct the enquiry and charge sheet was served by the
District Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies vide Annexure
No.2 to the writ petition and as such, the allegation made in para
15 of the writ petition that the petitioner was having no
information about appointment of Enquiry Officer is concerned,
Annexure Nos.2 and 3 of the writ petition nullify the contentions
raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the arguments raised by the
petitioner are liable to be rejected.
Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel
for the parties and perusing the record including the impugned
dismissal order, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been
afforded ample opportunity. Further, learned Counsel for the
petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the
disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, I find force in the submissions
of the learned Standing Counsel. Though the writ petition has
been filed in the year 1987, yet till date no interim order has been
passed in favour of the petitioner. No interference is required
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Dt. 3.2.2010
Lakshman/