JUDGMENT
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. The validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 21.8.1999 passed by respondent No. 1, communicated to the petitioner on 12.11,1999 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him in service on the post of Cooperative Supervisor in Kisan Sewa Samiti Ltd., Moth Jhansi and to his his salary w.e.f. September 1995 onwards.
2. Facts of the Case are that the petitioner was working at Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Moth Jhansi (for short ‘society’). He allegedly committed. irregularities, embezzlement of Rs. 2,80,000/- on 30.6.1995, interpolation of record and made illegal appointments of the employees of the society.
3. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him and Sri Sampurnanand Shukla. Additional District Co-operative Officer, Tahsil Moth was appointed as enquiry officer for conducting the enquiry. On the basis of a preliminary enquiry report dated 4.5.1996 submitted by the aforesaid enquiry officer, the petitioner was called upn to submit his explanation. No explanation was offered, as such, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 15.5.2006.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of suspension dated 15.5.2006, the petitioner instituted Civil Misc. Writ No. 39601 of 1996 before this Court which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 16.12.1996 directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment provided the petitioner coopertes. It is alleged by the respondents that the petitioner did not cooperate in the enquiry. He was served with a charge sheet containing 26 charges but the petitioner failed to give any reply to the charge sheet. As a result, the enquiry proceeded ex prate and show cause notice dated 31.1.1997 was served upon the petitioner. Ultimately he was terminated vide order dated 21.8.1999.
5. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.
6. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that Sri Sampurna Nand Shukla- respondent No. 4 was biased against the petitioner from the very beginning and in view of a Division Bench decision in Triloki Nath Tripathi v. Regional Administrative Committee and Ors. 1996 (2) LBESR 546, the impugned order dated 19.2.1997 dismissing his services is bad and impermissible in law. Me drew the attention of the Court to Sub-rule (d) of Regulation 59 of U.P. Pradhikari Viniyaim, 1976 (PCU)/Provintial Cooperative Federation Regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) which provides that officers on whose instance disciplinary action started shall not be appointed as an enquiry officer nor shall the enquiry officer with Appellate Authority. According to him. neither charge sheet nor the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and he was never called upon to explain the matter or to cross examine the witnesses, Me was not supplied with the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer and even order of dismissal was not served upon hum Me states that the news item dated 6.1.1997 and 4.2.1997 have been published in kanpur edition of the newspaper which is neither the place of posting of the petitioner nor his residence is at Kanpur as he is resident of Jhansi; that he possess his own hose in village Karguwan Post Medical College at Jhansi as such for want of opportunity of hearing and non-service of documents/charge sheet, he failed to submit his reply. The news items published in ‘Dainik Aaj’ dated 4.2.1997 is as under:
Jh tloUr flag ;kno ¼fuy- lg- Ik;-½ iq= Jh egsUnz flag]
xzke jeiqjok iksLV cukSjdyka
tuin bVkok ¼m0iz0½
vkids fuyEcu izdj.k es ^dkj.k crkvks uksfVl ^ bl dk;kZy; ds jftLVZM ,-Mh- i=kad 1106&09@ih-lh-;w-@LFkk- fnukad 31-1-97 }kjk vkids xzg irs ij Hkstk x;k gSA vfrfjDr izfr dk;kZy; es miyC/k gSA ;fn vki pkgs rks izdk’ku frfFk ls rhu fnu ds vUnj dk;Z fnol e 10 cts ls 5 cts ds e/; mifLFkr gksdj bl dk;kZy; ls izkIr dj ys rFkk mDr ds lEcU/k es Li”Vhdj.k izR;sd n’kk es fnukad 14-2-97 rd bl dk;kZy; es izkIr djkos A
¼oghnmYykg½
lgdkjh lfefr;ka m-iz- ,oa v/;{k {ksf=; desVh lgdkjh la?k
izkf/kdkjh ¼ih-lh-;w-½ >kalh e.My
7. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi v. Union of India and Ors. 1994 SCC (L&S) 592 wherein it has been held that in absence of any charge sheet or any material supplied to the delinquent official, it is difficult to agree that the inquiry did not suffer from any procedural infirmity, contended that the enquiry proceedings vitiated and the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Me further urged that the appellate authority arrived to the conclusion without specific finding that charges were proved and opportunity was given.
8. In support of his above contentions, he relied upon the decisions in Triloki Nath Triapthi v. Regional Administrative Committee and Ors. 1996 (2) LBESC 536 (D.B) and Union of India and Ors. v. Deena Nath Shanta Ram Karekar and Ors. 1998 SCC (L&S) 1837.
9. In rebuttal, the main contention of counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner himself has confessed embezzlement of Rs.2,80,000/- and has assured that he will deposit the same till 6.5.96 which crystally makes it clear, that he embezzled the aforesaid amount. The guilt having been accepted by the petitioner, he cannot challenge the impugned order.
10. No other point was argued.
11. After hearing counsels for the parties and perusal of record, it is evident from the letter dated 2.5.1996 of the petitioner addressed to the enquiry officer that he confessed the embezzlement of Rs. 2,80,000/- and assured that he will deposit the same till 6.5.1990. The aforesaid letter as contained in Annexure C.A. 7 to the counter affidavit is as under:
egksn;]
fuosnu gS fd esjs mij :0 2]80]000@& ¼:0 nks yk[k vLlh gtkj½ ek= fudy jgk gS mls 6-5-96 rd tek djk nawxk A ‘ks”k /ku tks Hkh fudysxk mls 10-5-96 rd vo’; gh tek djk nawxk A mDr eS vius gks’k gok’k es fy[k jgk gwWA fdlh ds nckoo’k es ugh A
g0 tloUr flag ;kno
2-5-96
12. An F.I.R. Under Sections 409/420/467/468 Indian Penal Code at Police Station Moth district Jhansi was lodged against the petitioner on 26.5.1996. From the perusal of record it is also evident that not only the charge sheet etc., were served upon him by registered post but also through news publications. The case of the petitioner that he is resident of Jhansi and news publication was of Kanpur edition cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the charge sheet was approved by District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jhansi and petitioner having accepted in his aforesaid letter that he has embezelled Rs.2,80,000/-, the natural consequence is that he must have been in contact with the departmental authorities about his fate. Despite service of charge sheet etc through registered post and news publication, if he failed to give any reply he has to blame himself which naturally indicates that he did not have any reply to offer and he accepted his guilt.
13. In view of above confession, guilt or the petitioner is proved beyond doubt. That being the factual position, the facts and circumstances of the cases relied upon by counsel for the petitioner do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned.
14. Further, as regards publication of news items dated 6.1.1997 and 4.2.1997. it is not necessary that the publication should be in a newspaper published from the city/place of posting of the petitioner or from the city/place of his residence. It would be sufficient compliance of law if they are published in newspapers having wide circulation in the area. From the publications, it appears that petitioner had been informed about his suspension on registered letter no 1106-09/PCU/Stha dated 31.1.1997 which had been Sent at his residence. The registered letter sent to addressee is deemed to be served unless proved to the contrary. The petitioner has not denied that registered letter had not been served on him hence he cannot take the plea that opportunity was not given to him.
15. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.