JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Sri Triloki Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, learned brief holder of Sri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel, who had filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 2 on 24.5.2009. 2. This writ petition is directed against termination order dated 17.5.2004 passed by Member Secretary Administrative Committee/District Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies U.P. Budaun terminating the services of the petitioner, who was Secretary Musiya Kasba Sadhan Sahakari Samiti Limited Block Bisauli District Budaun. Petitioner was a member of Centralized Service and his services were governed by U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies Centralized Service Regulations. Petitioner’s services were terminated on the ground that he had embezzled lacs of rupees. Prior to passing of the termination order, charge sheet was given to the petitioner. 3. The main ground of challenge to the termination order is that earlier also almost on the same charges petitioner was dismissed from service by the same authority on 28.2.2000/1.3.2000 and the said dismissal order was set aside by Regional Administrative Committee in appeal through order dated 6.8.2003. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that just as earlier petitioner had filed appeal against his previous termination order, similarly this time also he should have filed appeal instead of directly approaching the High Court through writ petition. The reply of learned counsel for the petitioner was that earlier Regional Administrative Committee had allowed his appeal, hence the second order of dismissal on the same charges is utterly without jurisdiction and petitioner can very well approach the High Court directly. 4. As counter-rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and parties have been heard on merit at length, hence I do not propose to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. Moreover in view of the allegation of the petitioner that District Assistant Registrar utterly flouted the earlier order of Regional Administrative Committee dated 6.8.2003 and passed fresh termination order almost on the same charges it is not appropriate to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal. It is quite strange that in the impugned dismissal order, there is absolutely no mention of earlier proceedings and order of Regional Administrative Committee dated 6.8.2003. Counter affidavit was filed by Sri Ashok Kumar Saxena, Cadre Incharge of PACS in District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Budaun. It is quite strange that in the impugned dismissal order, there is absolutely no mention of earlier proceedings and order of Regional Administrative Committee dated 6.8.2003. Counter affidavit was filed by Sri Ashok Kumar Saxena, Cadre Incharge of PACS in District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Budaun. In Para-8 it has been stated that petitioner embezzled more than Rs. 25 lacs from the assets of Musiya Nagla Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd and the documents of the Society were not available and in case the documents had been made available, embezzled amount could go upto Rs. 50 lacs. Paras 17 & 18 of the counter-affidavit are quoted below : “17. That the contents of paras 14, 15 and 16 of the writ petition are matter of the records, however it is stated that on this occasion he has availed the provisions of appeal because he has motivated the then Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Sri B.D. Mishra in his favour. 18. That the contents of para 17 of the writ petition are misconceived hence denied and in reply it is stated that a fresh enquiry initiated by the Regional Administrative Committee has not been annexed for reason best known to the petitioner. However, it is stated here that B.D. Mishra the then Deputy Registrar Coop. Societies was in collusion with the petitioner, consequently he has passed the order in question dated 6.8.2003 which is not tenable in the eye of the law and need not be taken into consideration.” 5. The Court is rather shocked by the above averments. How a subordinate officer can level charges against superiors. However, wrong the order of appellate authority/Regional Administrative Committee may be, District Assistant Registrar or Cadre In-charge of District B.A.C.S. in a District cannot use such language and completely ignore the order of appellate authority contemptuously. It is height of indiscipline. 6. The charges in both the enquiries were almost the same if not exactly the same. Almost all the charges in the earlier charge sheet were included in the subsequent charge sheet culminating in the impugned punishment order. 7. The Court is also not satisfied with the correctness of the order of Regional Administrative Committee dated 6.8.2003. 8. Copy of order of the appellate authority/Regional Administrative Committee is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the said order, it is mentioned that fresh enquiry was got conducted by the Regional Administrative Committee. 7. The Court is also not satisfied with the correctness of the order of Regional Administrative Committee dated 6.8.2003. 8. Copy of order of the appellate authority/Regional Administrative Committee is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the said order, it is mentioned that fresh enquiry was got conducted by the Regional Administrative Committee. The fresh enquiry was conducted by Additional District Assistant Officer and he sent the report on 26.7.2003. The said report has not been annexed. At the earlier stage, petitioner had been served with two charge-sheets, one relating to the period when he was working in Bisauli and the other in respect of his work in Musiya Nagla. In respect of first charge-sheet, charges No. 5, 7 and 8 were not found proved by R.A.C. on the basis of fresh enquiry report. Thereafter, it was observed that charges mentioned below in the said order were found proved. The proved charges included Charge No. 2 of first charge-sheet in respect of embezzlement of Rs. 96,000/-. In respect of the said charge, it was held that the petitioner had filed a case against Shishu Pal Singh, accountant of the Society, hence decision taken in the said case by the arbitrator would be final. Thereafter, it was mentioned that the Committee decided that the petitioner should deposit Rs. 50,000/- as security which would be subject to the decision of the arbitrator. 9. There is absolutely no allegation in the writ petition that the said amount was deposited. There is also no indication that what is the stage of the case before the arbitrator instituted by the petitioner against Shishu Pal Singh, the accountant. 10. Against Charge No. 8 of the first charge sheet the finding in the order dated 6.8.2003 is that the action of the petitioner delivering 1800 empty bags worth Rs. 41,000/- to I.P.S.S. was against the rules. It is quite strange that absolutely nothing was said in the said order regarding charges No. 6, 7 & 9 to 15 of the earlier charge sheet. 11. Thereafter, in the said order by R.A.C. charges No. 2, 9 & 10 of the second charge sheet were discussed. Against Charge No. 2, it was held that the petitioner was liable to deposit Rs. 1799.60/-. Charge No. 10 of the second charge-sheet was that petitioner had embezzled Rs. 11. Thereafter, in the said order by R.A.C. charges No. 2, 9 & 10 of the second charge sheet were discussed. Against Charge No. 2, it was held that the petitioner was liable to deposit Rs. 1799.60/-. Charge No. 10 of the second charge-sheet was that petitioner had embezzled Rs. 163,400/- and had shown the said amount against the names of Virendra Singh, Accountant (Rs. 58,772/-), Nakshtra Pal Singh, Accountant (Rs. 50772/-) and Nisar Ahmad, peon (Rs. 41960/-). In respect of the said charge, Regional Administrative Committee held that it did not fall within the definition of embezzlement, however remaining amount of Rs. 3876/- was liable to be deposited. It was further held that the dispute regarding deposit of the aforesaid amount (about Rs. 1,60,000) in the names of the aforesaid three employees should be got decided under Sections 68 and 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and thereafter recovery should be made from the persons found to have received/embezzled the amount. Ultimately dismissal order was set aside and following punishments were awarded through order dated 6.8.2003 : (i) Petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 5675.60/-. (ii) Petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the form of F.D.R. in the Bank. (iii) No salary would be paid from the date of termination order till the date of joining. (iv) however the said period would be treated to be in service. (v) After proof of deposit of the aforesaid amount Secretary District Administrative Committee, Budaun would accept the joining report of the petitioner. (vi) Censure entry was awarded to the petitioner. 12. The entire case of the petitioner is based upon the order of R.A.C. dated 6.8.2003. In my opinion the said order is utterly illegal and cannot be justified in any manner. The R.A.C. agreed that huge financial loss had been caused by the petitioner however, it adopted an extremely casual and lenient approach. 13. If impugned termination order is set aside, it will amount to enforcing and reviving the order of R.A.C. dated 6.8.2009 which is quite illegal. In such scenario writ Court may refuse to exercise the jurisdiction. 14. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. ————