JUDGMENT By the Court.—An order of dismissal from service dated 25.9.1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 12.7.1999 confirming the said order have been questioned by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Secretary of Co-operative Societies, Ballia in the year 1978. He stood transferred as Secretary of Baharpur Sadhan Sahkari Samiti in Nagra Block of District Ballia. vide communication order dated 7.12.1993, petitioner was suspended on account of certain financial irregularities committed by him while functioning on the said post in the year 1984. The order of suspension was followed by an enquiry and two charges were framed against the petitioner i.e. while posted at Baharpur Sadhan Sahkari Samiti in Nagra Block of District Ballia he had not handed over the items to the new incumbent as a result of which stocks were found deficient in the Godown and the second charge was that the petitioner had not issued receipts of Rs. 2800/- even though the said amount was allegedly received by him from the two members of the Society. Inquiry Officer in his report found that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 85,159/-. In respect of the second charge petitioner had acknowledged that he had received the amount and offered to return the money back. 3. A report alongwith proceedings was submitted to the competent authority who vide its notice issued on 3.9.1994 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 85,159/- within a week. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and offered to deposit Rs. 2800/- collected by him from the two members of the society. In his reply to the first charge, petitioner stated that the loss was caused on account of dilapidated condition of the Godown for which he had consistently requested the authorities to affect the repairs in the said Godown. He further stated that the incident is of 1984 and detection of shortage in the year 1993 after about ten years is not permissible. But to the utter surprise of the petitioner, on receipt of the explanation, the impugned order of dismissal has been passed. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which has also been dismissed vide order dated 12.7.1999. Hence this writ petition. 4. But to the utter surprise of the petitioner, on receipt of the explanation, the impugned order of dismissal has been passed. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which has also been dismissed vide order dated 12.7.1999. Hence this writ petition. 4. Case set out by the petitioner is that no enquiry in the matter was conducted as envisaged under the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Regulations, 1978. As a matter of fact, Inquiry Officer had recommended for recovery of this amount which was found to have been misappropriated by the petitioner which was accepted by the competent authority by directing the petitioner to deposit the said amount vide show cause notice issued on that date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on failure to deposit the amount, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are patently erroneous and illegal and in complete disregard of the Regulations 58 and 59 of the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Regulations, 1978 as also in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. On the other hand stand of the respondents is that the petitioner had embezzled the amount which was detected by the Inquiry Officer and consequently on his failure to deposit the said amount the order of dismissal from service was passed. All the safeguards provided under the rules/regulations have been followed and there is no violation of the rules of natural justice. 6. We have heard Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the material on record. 7. The Services of the petitioner is governed by the regulation known as U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralized Service Regulations, 1978 which has been framed in exercise of power under Rule 30 of the Regulations 1978. Regulation 58 of the said Regulations lays down various penalties which can be imposed against an employee of the society. Regulation 59 provides that the penalties of reduction in rank, removal and dismissal from service shall not be imposed unless provisions of Regulations are followed. Proviso to Regulation 58 (d) prohibits imposition of reduction in rank or grade, removal and dismissal from service under Sub-clauses (iv) (v) and (vi) of Clause (a) of the said rule without recourse to disciplinary proceedings. Proviso to Regulation 58 (d) prohibits imposition of reduction in rank or grade, removal and dismissal from service under Sub-clauses (iv) (v) and (vi) of Clause (a) of the said rule without recourse to disciplinary proceedings. Regulation 58 and 59 are quoted below: 58(a) Penalties.—Without prejudice to the provisions contained in any other regulations, a member who 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, shall be liable to be punished by any one of the following penalties. (i) Censure (ii) Withholding of increment (iii) recovery from pay on security deposit to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the society by the member’s conduct, (iv) Reduction in rank or grade: (v) Removal in rank or grade (vi) dismissal from service (b) Copy of the order of the punishment shall invariably be given to the member concerned and entry to this effect shall be made in the service record of the member. (c) No penalty except censure shall be imposed unless show cause notice has been given to the member and he has either failed to reply within the specified time or his reply has been found to be unsatisfactory by the punishing authority. (d) (i) The charge-sheeted member shall be awarded punishment by the appropriate authority according to the seriousness of the offence; Provided no penalty under Sub-clause (iv)(v) and (vi) of Clause (a) above shall be imposed without recourse to disciplinary proceedings. (ii) No member shall be reduced in rank or grade or removed or dismissed by an authority other than by which he was appointed unless the appointing authority has made prior delegation of such authority to such other person or authority in writing. (e) the appointing authority or person authorised by him while passing orders for stoppage of increments shall state the period for which they are stopped and whether they shall have effect of postponing future increments. (e) the appointing authority or person authorised by him while passing orders for stoppage of increments shall state the period for which they are stopped and whether they shall have effect of postponing future increments. Regulation 59 deals with the disciplinary proceedings, relevant extract of which is reproduced below: 59, Disciplinary proceedings.—(1) (a) The disciplinary proceeding against member shall be conducted by the Inquiring Officer referred to in Clause (b) below with due observance of the Principles of natural justice for which it shall be necessary that: (i) the member shall be served with a charge-sheet containing specific charges and mention of evidence in support of each charge and he shall be required to submit explanation in respect of the charge within reasonable time which shall not be less than fifteen days. (ii) the member shall also be given an opportunity to, produce at his own cost or to cross-examine witnesses in his defence and shall be given an opportunity of being heard in petition, if he so desires; (iii) if no explanation in respect of the charge-sheet is received or the explanation submitted is unsatisfactory the competent authority may award appropriate punishment considered necessary (b) (i) where a member is dismissed or removed from service on the ground of conduct which has lead to his conviction on a criminal charge or (ii) Where the member refuses or fails without sufficient cause to appear before the Inquiring Officer when specifically called upon in writing to appear or (iii) Where a member has absconded and his where abouts are not know to the district committee nor more than three months; or (iv) Where it is otherwise (for reasons to be recorded) not possible to communicate with him the competent authority may award appropriate punishment without taking or continuing disciplinary proceedings. (c) Disciplinary proceedings shall be taken by the District Committee against the member either suo motu or on a report made to this effect by an Inspector authority or the Chairman of the society under whose control the member is working or may have worked. (d) The Inquiring Officer shall be appointed by the Member-Secretary of the District Committee; .............. (c) Disciplinary proceedings shall be taken by the District Committee against the member either suo motu or on a report made to this effect by an Inspector authority or the Chairman of the society under whose control the member is working or may have worked. (d) The Inquiring Officer shall be appointed by the Member-Secretary of the District Committee; .............. (f) A member other then one referred to in Clause (e) above may be placed under suspension by the District Committee or any other officer authorised for the purpose in the following circumstances; (i) when the said authority is satisfied that a prima facie case exists, which is likely to result in the removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of the member. (ii) When an inquiry into his conduct is immediately contemplated or is pending and his further continuance on his post is considered detrimental to the interest of the society or the authority; (ii) When a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under police investigation for which he has been arrested or he is undergoing trial in a Court of law for an offence under the Indian penal Code, U.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1965 or any other Act or charges have been proved against him by a Criminal Court; (iv).............. (v).............. (2) ............ (g) The order of suspension may be revoked: (i) by the authority which passed the order or (ii) by the District Committee; If there are sufficient reasons for revocation and the same shall be recorded in the order of revocation. On the touch stone of provisions quoted above, question raised is being looked into; 8. While scanning through the import of Regulation 59, it emerges that the following steps are required to be taken before imposing the penalties of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank : (a) appointment of Inquiry Officer; (b) serving of charge-sheet containing specific charges supported with sufficient evidence; (c) submission of written statement by the delinquent official; and (d) examination of witnesses and the right of the delinquent official to cross-examine. 9. On conclusion of these proceedings, enquiry report is required to be submitted alongwith proceedings which includes the charge-sheet supported with evidence in respect of the specific charge, explanation of the delinquent official, witnesses if so examined in this behalf and the record, to the disciplinary authority who is required to take decision on the said report. 10. 9. On conclusion of these proceedings, enquiry report is required to be submitted alongwith proceedings which includes the charge-sheet supported with evidence in respect of the specific charge, explanation of the delinquent official, witnesses if so examined in this behalf and the record, to the disciplinary authority who is required to take decision on the said report. 10. On receipt of the inquiry report alongwith the recommendations, if the disciplinary authority finds that the charges are not proved and same is agreed by the authority, nothing more is required to be done. If the report makes a finding in favour of the employee on all the charges or finds him guilty of some charges, it is the authority who is to decide provisionally as to what punishment should be imposed on the employee and it accordingly proceeds to issue a second notice in that behalf. 11. In cases, where the Inquiry Officer returns findings some of which are in favour of the employee and some against him, the authority is entitled to consider the whole matter and if it holds that some or all the charges framed against the employee are, in its opinion, prima facie established against him, then the authority has to decide as to what punishment is to be imposed and serve him a second notice accordingly. 12. It would, thus, be seen that the object of second notice is to enable the employee to satisfy the authority on both the counts, one that he is innocent of the charges framed against him and the other that even if the charges are held to be proved against him, the punishment proposed is unduly severe. At the second stage, the opportunity which is intended to be given to the employee is to show cause not only against the proposed punishment but also against the finding recorded against him by the Enquiry Officer. Reasonable opportunity would mean an opportunity which is to be given to the delinquent official to explain his conduct regarding the allegations levelled against him and also includes the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted. In this behalf he is required to be provided both the Inquiry report, copy of the proceedings in order to question the said Inquiry. In this behalf he is required to be provided both the Inquiry report, copy of the proceedings in order to question the said Inquiry. Appointing authority is required to examine the explanation of the delinquent official both on the manner in which Inquiry has been conducted as also in respect to the punishment proposed by him. The proposed opinion framed by the appointing authority on the basis of an Inquiry report is required to be re-assessed and reviewed after the explanation is submitted by the delinquent official. This in essence is the requirement of rule as also based upon principle of providing reasonable opportunity to the delinquent official. 13. Applying this principle in the present case, it be seen that the report of the Inquiry Officer indicts the petitioner of having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 85,159/- and on the basis of the said report a show cause notice is issued to the petitioner to deposit this amount within a week. It be seen that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner does not contemplate the dismissal of petitioner from service but it only direct him to pay the amount within a specified period. Dismissal of petitioner has been passed without issuance of show-cause notice, which we say so because the show cause notice is related only to the payment of Rs. 85,159/- and not for dismissal of petitioner from service. 14. As already discussed herein above, the competent authority on the basis of Inquiry report was required to indicate the proposed punishment to the petitioner which in the present case has not been done hence in the eyes of law no show-cause notice for the proposed punishment has been served on the petitioner as such the punishment proposed on the basis of the impugned show-cause notice cannot be sustained in law and is required to be quashed. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 25.9.1995 and 12.7.1999 are hereby quashed. We direct the respondents to proceed in the matter from the stage the show-cause notice was served on the petitioner. The status of the petitioner will be of a suspended employee and he shall be entitled to receive suspension allowance till he remains in service or till the decision by the competent authority. Petitioner will be well within his right to question the Inquiry report and the proposed punishment. The status of the petitioner will be of a suspended employee and he shall be entitled to receive suspension allowance till he remains in service or till the decision by the competent authority. Petitioner will be well within his right to question the Inquiry report and the proposed punishment. However, in case the petitioner is exonerated from the charges then his services shall be restored from the date he was placed under suspension with all consequential benefits. 16. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. —————