JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwal, J. - This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against an order dated 8-3-1975 dismissing the petitioner from the service of the Mainpuri Distt. Co-operative Bank. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 25th Oct., 1971. He was appointed on one year's probation. Subsequently, the petitioners appointment was approved by the Managing Committee of the Distt. Cooperative Bank. Mainpuri and as such the petitioner became a confirmed employee of the Distt. Co-operative Bank. It appears that thereafter a criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was also responsible for the withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on 15th Jan., 1972 and Rs. 4,500/- on 17th Jan., 1972 from the account of one Smt. Sita Devi by presenting a false withdrawal form. The III Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, by an order dated 5th Dec., 1974, convicted the petitioner under S. 419/34, 420 and 471 of the I.P.C. In view of this conviction the petitioner was dismissed under R. 83 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 as the petitioner was convicted of a criminal charge involving moral turpitude. The dismissal order was passed by the President of the Bank. Consequently the petitioner has challenged the dismissal order by means of the present petition. 3. During the pendency of this petition, the appeal which was filed against the conviction of the petitioner has been allowed by the court on 31st Aug., 1979 and the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The judgment of this Court has been attached as Annexure I to the supplementary affidavit filed with the application dated 31st Jan., 1982. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions before us. His first contention is that the president of the Bank had a authority to dismiss the petitioner. The dismissal order could only have been passed by the Managing Committee of the Bank and as such the order is wholly without jurisdiction. The second submission of the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceedings were not initiated against the petitioner and no opportunity was accorded to him to show cause. The order, therefore, was in violation of the Regulation. The dismissal order could only have been passed by the Managing Committee of the Bank and as such the order is wholly without jurisdiction. The second submission of the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceedings were not initiated against the petitioner and no opportunity was accorded to him to show cause. The order, therefore, was in violation of the Regulation. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that basis of the order, namely the conviction of the petitioner by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, having been wiped off the dismissal order cannot be sustained. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Regn. 83(ii) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975 (Hereafter referred to as the Regulations) provides that an employee who is convicted of a criminal charge involving moral turpitude by a Criminal court shall be liable to dismissal. Regn. 84(i) enumerates the punishments which may be given to an employee if he commits a breach of duty enjoined upon him or has been convicted for criminal offence or an offence under Section 103 of the Act or does anything prohibited by these regulations. Under Sub-cl. (g) one of the punishments for the above offences is dismissal from service. Regn. 84(iii) specifically provides for issuance of a show cause notice before the employee is punished except in the case of censure. It reads as under: "84(iii) No penalty except censure shall be imposed unless a show cause notice has been given to the employee and he has either failed to reply within the specified time or his reply has been found to be unsatisfactory by the punishing authority." 6. Regn. 85(ii)(a) provides that where an employee is dismissed or removed from service on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, the competent Authority may award appropriate punishment without taking or continuing disciplinary proceedings. 7. In view of the above provisions it is clear that where an employee is convicted of a criminal charge involving moral turpitude, it is not necessary that disciplinary proceedings may be taken against him, as provided in Regn. 85(ii)(a) but in any case, since under Regn. 83(ii), the employee would be liable to dismissal Regn. 7. In view of the above provisions it is clear that where an employee is convicted of a criminal charge involving moral turpitude, it is not necessary that disciplinary proceedings may be taken against him, as provided in Regn. 85(ii)(a) but in any case, since under Regn. 83(ii), the employee would be liable to dismissal Regn. 84(iii) fully comes into effect and, as such, unless an employee has been given a show cause notice, no order for dismissal from service can be passed against the employee. In the instant case it is admitted that merely on the conviction of the petitioner, the order of dismissal was passed without giving him a show cause notice. The order, consequently did not comply with the requirement of Regn. 84(iii) and as such, the order passed against the petitioner dismissing him is clearly void in law. In view of the above it is not necessary to consider the first and the last submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.- 8. In the result, we allow the petition, quash the order dated 8th Mar., 1975, dismissing the petitioner from the service of the Distt. Co-operative Bank, Mainpuri. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.