JUDGMENT : Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the State and Mr. Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 3. 2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari whereby, the impugned order of dismissal from service and determination of recovery of Rs. 9,53,433/-from the petitioner dated 30.11.2015 passed by opposite party no. 1 and approved by opposite party no. 5, is quashed. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari whereby, Sub Rule (1) (Kha) and (Ga) of Rule 84 of Employees Service Rules, 1980 of U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd., is quashed and declared ultra vires the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 1 to immediately reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. the date, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 13.08.2013. iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 12, Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative, U.P. to institute an inquiry to find out the roles of opposite parties no. 2, 8, 10 and 9, in the abduction of 1093.60 quintal of paddy by opposite party no. 11 and consequent loss of Rs. 14,21,680/-to PCF. v. Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. vi. Allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in short, are that the petitioner was posted as Junior Assistant/Incharge, PCF, Krishak Seva Kendra, Bharavan at Navadon, District Hardoi. During the period 8.11.2012 to 9.11.2013 at PCF, Krishak Seva Kendra, Bharavan at Navadon, District Hardoi the petitioner being Center Incharge had purchased 1946.60 quintal paddy for the PCF. Against the said purchase, he had paid the amounts to the farmers through cheques with joint signatures of himself and one Sri Brijesh Kumar Maurya, Assistant Accountant posted in the Office of District Manager, PCF, Hardoi duly authorized by the District Manager, PCF, Hardoi. The details regarding issuance of cheques have been mentioned by the petitioner in the purchase register. Against the said purchase, he had paid the amounts to the farmers through cheques with joint signatures of himself and one Sri Brijesh Kumar Maurya, Assistant Accountant posted in the Office of District Manager, PCF, Hardoi duly authorized by the District Manager, PCF, Hardoi. The details regarding issuance of cheques have been mentioned by the petitioner in the purchase register. On 22.1.2013, the petitioner had sent “Daily Progress Report” of the purchase center to the office of District Manager, PCF, Hardoi. As per the said “Daily Progress Report” the petitioner had delivered 1800 quintal paddy against the total purchase i.e., 1946.60 quintal and only 146.60 quintal paddy was shown balance at the purchase enter. On the basis of said report, when CMR was demanded from one of the authorized rice mill, namely, Ms/ Pashupati Nath Agro India Pvt. Ltc., Hardoi, some discrepancy was found in the delivery of paddy against the aforesaid purchase. A clarification regarding differences in the purchase and delivery shown in the daily progress report was called for from the petitioner. The petitioner did not submit any clarification. Vide letter 23.2.2013, the District Manager, PCF, Hardoi directed the petitioner to personally appear before him and clarify the correct position. Again, the petitioner did not come to the Office of District Manager, PCF, Hardoi. With regard to ambiguity in the purchase and supply of paddy in PCF, Hardoi, an enquiry was conducted by the General Manager and in the said enquiry it has come that out of 1946.60 quintal of paddy, only 450 quintal of paddy was delivered to M/s Pashupati Nath Agro India Pvt. Ltd and 403 quintal of paddy was delivered to Jai Vaishno Rice Mill by the transporter Arun Kumar. He has submitted the enquiry report dated 7.8.2013. On the basis of said enquiry report, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.8.2013, in contemplation of departmental enquiry, on the charge that during the year 2012-13, the petitioner has fraudulently shown purchasing of 1093.60 quintal paddy and it was also fraudulently shown that challans were given to the so called transporter contractor, Arun Kumar, however, the paddy was not delivered to the Rice Mill, M/s Pashupati Nath Agro India Pvt. Ltd. He has embezzled 1093.60 quintal of paddy amounting to Rs. 14,21,680/-. The petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 26.10.2013 to which he has submitted reply on 11.11.2013. 14,21,680/-. The petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 26.10.2013 to which he has submitted reply on 11.11.2013. A supplementary charge-sheet dated 21.12.2013 was also served on the petitioner to which he has submitted reply on 3.1.2014. On the basis of enquiry report, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 24.4.2014 to which the petitioner has submitted his reply on 21.5.2014. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the enquiry report and reply submitted by the petitioner has passed the impugned order. 4. For the aforesaid lapses, an FIR was lodged by the then District Manager, PCF, Hardoi at Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi at Crime No. 150 of 2013, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 IPC against the transporter, Arun Kumar. During the course of investigation, the name of petitioner came to light and he was made accused. The petitioner was arrested and sent to jail. He was released on bail vide order dated 23.12.2014 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 7255 (B) of 2014; Jai Prakash Saini vs. State of U.P. and others. 5. Mr. Rajiv Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned punishment order is void ab initio as the petitioner has been dismissed from service without affording any opportunity to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. No oral inquiry was conducted. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of appeal against the impugned punishment order as provided under Rule 87 Employees Service Rules, 1980 because the appellate authority has accorded his approval to the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another v. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510 , particularly paragraph 22. 6. It is also submitted that the order impugned has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to petitioner nor he was given any opportunity to produce any defence witness. He was also not afforded opportunity of personal hearing. 7. It is further submitted that in the instant case the petitioner has been made escape goat to save the skin of superior officers. This fact is also corroborated by the observations made by this Court while granting bail to the petitioner. He was also not afforded opportunity of personal hearing. 7. It is further submitted that in the instant case the petitioner has been made escape goat to save the skin of superior officers. This fact is also corroborated by the observations made by this Court while granting bail to the petitioner. The Court has observed that the petitioner was only a Junior Clerk and no other higher officer of the PCF has been made as accused in this case. 8. Mr. Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 3 submits that the service of petitioner is governed under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short ‘Act’) as well as U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (for short ‘Regulations of 1975’) and Employees Service Rules, 1980 of U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. (for short ‘Rules of 1980’). It is submitted that although the service of employees of U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. is governed by the Rules and Regulations but where there is repugnancy in between any provision of Rules and Regulations, the provisions of Regulations will prevail over the provisions of Rules. It is submitted that prior to dismissal from service full fledged disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in which he was provided full opportunity of defence. The petitioner was also given opportunity of oral hearing, however, he could not prove his innocence and the competent authority on the basis of enquiry report has awarded the impugned punishment to the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 3 also submits that with regard non-supply and embezzlement of 1093.60 quintal of paddy, the Regional Manager, PCF, Lucknow, the then District Manager, PCF and the Assistant Account were also awarded suitable punishment for the loss caused to the PCF, hence, the submission of petitioner that he has been made escape goat in the matter has no force and is misconceived. 10. It is further submitted that the petitioner has prayed for declaration of Rule 84 (i) (b) and (c) of the Rules ultra vires. In this regard, it is contended that the provisions contained in Rule 84 (i) (b) and (c) are intra vires and nowhere violated the principle of natural justice and neither the transgression of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, it is contended that the provisions contained in Rule 84 (i) (b) and (c) are intra vires and nowhere violated the principle of natural justice and neither the transgression of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The vires of any provision may not be challenged in a casual manner, but it has to be established that such provision is not intra vires. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the parties’ counsel and gone through the record. 12. The petitioner was a class III employee working on the post of Junior Clerk in the U.P. Cooperative Federation since August, 2012. He was posted as Incharge, PCF, Krishak Seva Kendra, Bharavan at Navadon, District Hardoi. The services of petitioner are governed under the provisions of the Act as well as Regulations of 1975 and Rules of 1980 as amended from time to time. 13. It is to be noted that although the services of employees of U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. are governed by the Rules of 1980 and Regulations of 1975 but wherever there is any repugnancy in any provision of Rules of 1980 and Regulations of 1975, the provisions of Regulations of 1975 will prevail over the provisions of Rules of 1980. 14. Between the period 8.11.2012 to 9.11.2013 at PCF, Krishak Seva Kendra, Bharavan at Navadon, District Harodi, the petitioner being the Center Incharge had purchased 1946.60 quintal paddy for the PCF. Against the said purchase, the petitioner had paid the amounts to the farmers through cheques with joint signatures of petitioner and one Brijesh Kumar Maurya, Assistant Accountant, in the office of District Manager, PCF, Hardoi duly authorized by the District Manager, PCF, Hardoi. The details of the said purchase of paddy and details of payments made through cheques in this regard are mentioned in the purchase register of the center by the petitioner. Being the Center Incharge, it was the duty of the petitioner to purchase the paddy and deliver it to the rice mills authorized by PCF. On 22.1.2013, the petitioner had sent ‘Daily Progress Report’ of the purchase center to the office of District Manager, PCF, Hardoi. As per the said report, the petitioner had delivered 1800 quintal paddy against the total purchase of 1946.60 quintal and merely 146.60 quintal paddy had been shown balance at the purchase center. On 22.1.2013, the petitioner had sent ‘Daily Progress Report’ of the purchase center to the office of District Manager, PCF, Hardoi. As per the said report, the petitioner had delivered 1800 quintal paddy against the total purchase of 1946.60 quintal and merely 146.60 quintal paddy had been shown balance at the purchase center. On the basis of said report, when CMR was demanded from one of the authorized rice mill, namely, M/s Pashupati Nath Agro India Pvt. Ltd., Hardoi; then, some discrepancy was found in the delivery of paddy against aforesaid purchase. Because of non-verification of supply of 1800 quintal paddy, the District Manager, PCF, Hardoi vide letter dated 8.2.2013 had asked the petitioner for submitting clarification about the differences in purchase and delivery shown in the daily progress report. The petitioner, however, did not submit any clarification. Hence, vide another letter dated 23.2.2013 issued by the District Manager, PCF, Hardoi, the petitioner was directed to clarify the correct position in the office in person. The petitioner, however, did not come. It was only on 21.3.2013 that the petitioner submitted a list in the district office containing the details of supply of paddy to 22 mills. It was found that the petitioner had submitted an ambiguous report. It was also found that the petitioner had allegedly got the supply of paddy to M/s Pashupati Nath Agro India Pvt. Ltd., Hardoi (rice mill) through transport contractor, Arun Kumar. In this regard, a fact finding enquiry was conducted by Mr. Shashank Joshi, General Manager who had submitted his report dated 7.8.2013 regarding the embezzlement/misuse of 1093.60 quintal paddy and thereby causing loss of Rs. 14,21,680/-to PCF. It was thereafter that vide order dated 13.8.2013 the petitioner was placed under suspension and a decision was taken to hold disciplinary proceedings against him and Mr. M.K. Agarwal was appointed as Enquiry Officer. 15. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for petitioner that in the disciplinary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer did not provide opportunity of defence to petitioner and concluded the enquiry proceedings in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It has been argued that no oral enquiry was held to prove the charges. The petitioner was not afforded opportunity of cross-examination. He was also not provided any opportunity to produce defence witness. It has been argued that no oral enquiry was held to prove the charges. The petitioner was not afforded opportunity of cross-examination. He was also not provided any opportunity to produce defence witness. One of the grounds taken in the writ petition is that the petitioner was not given opportunity to submit representation against the report of the Enquiry Officer. 16. Learned counsel for petitioner insisted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has not recorded any finding as to why the oral enquiry by fixing date and time was not conducted before passing the impugned order of dismissal. 17. The main contention of learned counsel for petitioner as such is that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it has been passed on the basis of a disciplinary enquiry which has not been held in accordance with the relevant rules and violative of principles of natural justice. 18. Rule 83 of Rules of 1980 provides the details of the punishments which can be awarded to a delinquent employee in case he is found guilty of any misconduct or has been convicted for any crime. The punishment of dismissal is one of the punishments prescribed under Rule 83. Rule 83 also provides that copy of order of punishment shall be provided to the delinquent employee in this regard entry in service record shall be made. While awarding punishment except censure prior show cause notice shall be given to delinquent employee and he shall be given opportunity to submit his reply. The punishment can be awarded only in case his reply to the show cause notice is found unsatisfactory. The competent authority shall be empowered to impose the punishment as provided under Rule 83 taking into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct. It is also provided that the punishment of reduction in rank or grade held substantively by the employee, removal from service or dismissal from service shall not be awarded without holding disciplinary proceedings. Rule 84 of Rules of 1980 deals with the procedure which has to be followed while holding disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent employee. It provides that principles of natural justice shall be followed in the enquiry. Rule 84 of Rules of 1980 deals with the procedure which has to be followed while holding disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent employee. It provides that principles of natural justice shall be followed in the enquiry. The employee shall be served with a charge-sheet along with documents which are relied as evidence in support of the charges, and he shall be given an opportunity of at least 15 days time to submit his reply. In case any employee wants to produce any evidence in his support, he can do so, but at his own expenses and he may also be given opportunity of cross-examination and for that purpose he shall be given opportunity of personal hearing in the enquiry. It is also provided that in case no reply is submitted to the charge-sheet or the reply of the employee has been found unsatisfactory; then, the competent authority can proceed to award appropriate punishment to him. Rule 85 provides provision of appeal whereas Rule 86 provides that the punishment prescribed under the said Rule 83 (1) (Ka) to (Chh) shall be awarded only after prior approval of Service Board. Rule 85 provides provision of appeal whereas Rule 86 provides that the punishment prescribed under the said Rule 83 (1) (Ka) to (Chh) shall be awarded only after prior approval of Service Board. Relevant Rules 83, 84, 85 and 86 are reproduced below: ^^83- ¼1½ fdlh vU; lsok fu;e esa fn;s x;s micU/kksa ij izfrdwy izHkko Mkys fcuk fdlh deZpkjh dks tks vius drZO;ksa dk dkbZ mYya?ku djrk gS ;k n.M vijk/k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 103 ds v/khu fdlh vijk/k ds fy;s fl) nks"k gqvk gS ;k lsok fu;ekoyh }kjk izfrfl) dksbZ dk;Z djrk gS] rks mls fuEu 'kkfLr;ksa esa ls ,d ;k vf/kd 'kkfLr;ksa }kjk nf.Mr fd;k tk ldsxkA ¼d½ fuUnk] ¼[k½ osru o`f) ij jksd] ¼x½ Js.kh 4 ds fdlh deZpkjh ¼pijklh] pkSdhnkj vkfn½ ij tqekZuk] ¼?k½ deZpkjh ds vkpj.k }kjk QsMjs'ku dks gksus okyh fdlh /ku laca/kh {kfr dks iw.kZr;k vFkok vkaf'kd :i ls {kfriwfrZ djus ds fy;s osru ;k izfrHkwfr ls olwyh] ¼M-½ deZpkjh }kjk ekSfyd :i esa /k`r ij ;k Js.kh esa voufr] ¼p½ lsok ls gVk;k tkuk] rFkk ¼N½ lsok ls inP;qr ¼2½ n.M ds vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vfuok;Zr% lEc) deZpkjh dks nh tk;sxh vkSj deZpkjh ds lsok vfHkys[k esa bl vk'k; dh izfo"V dh tk;sxhA ¼3½ fuUnk djus ds vykok dksbZ Hkh 'kkfLr rc rd vkjksfir ugha dh tk;sxh tc rd fd deZpkjh ds dkj.k crkus dh uksfVl u ns nh xbZ gks vkSj ;k rks og fofufnZ"V le; ds Hkhrj mRrj nsus esa vlQy jgk gks vFkok mRrj n.M nsus okys vf/kdkjh }kjk vlarks"ktud ik;k x;k gksA ¼4½ ¼d½ vkjksfir deZpkjh dks leqi;qDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk vijk/k dh xEHkhjrk ds vuqlkj n.M fd;k tk;sxk% izfrcU/k ;g gS fd [k.M ¼1½ ds mi[k.M ¼M-½] ¼p½ ;k ¼N½ ds v/khu dksbZ 'kfDr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh fd;s fcuk vkjksfir ugha dh tk;sxhA ¼[k½ dksbZ deZpkjh ml izkf/kdkjh ls ftlds }kjk og fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk fHkUu fdlh izkf/kdkjh }kjk rc rd gVk;k ;k inP;qr ugha fd;k tk;sxk tc rd fd fu;qDr izkf/kdkjh us ,sls vizkf/kdkj dk izfrfu/kk;u ,sls vU; O;fDr ;k izkf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa igys gh u dj fn;k gksA ¼5½ fu;qDr izkf/kdkjh ;k mlds }kjk izkf/kd`r O;fDr osru o`f) jksdus dk vkns'k nsrs le; ml vof/k dk tc rd ds fy;s og jksdh xbZ gS vkSj bldk fd D;k mlls Hkfo"; dh osru o`f);ka vFkok inksUufr LFkfxr gksxh] mYys[k djsxkA 84- vuq’kklfud dk;Zokgh 1- fdlh deZpkjh ds fo:) vuq’kklfud tkapdrkZ vf/kdkjh ¼uhps [k.M ¼4½esa fufnZ"V½ }kjk uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)krksa dk vuqikyu djrs gq, dh tk;sxh ftlds fy;s og vko’;d gksxk fd ¼d½ deZpkjh dks ,d vkjksi i= fn;k tk;s ftlesa fofufnZ"V vkjksiksa vkSj izR;sd vkjksi ds leFkZu esa lk{; dk gokyk fn;k gks vkSj mlls ;qfDr ;qDr le; ds Hkhrj tks iUnzg fnu ls de ugha gksxk] vkjksiks ds lEcU/k esa Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr djus dh vis{kk dh tk;s vkSj ¼[k½ fdlh ,sls deZpkjh dks vius izfrokn ds fy;s vius O;; ij lkf{k;ksa dks izLrqr djus ;k lkf{k;ksa dh izfr&ijh{kk djus dk volj Hkh fn;k tk;s vkSj ;fn og ,slk pkgs rks mls O;fDRkxr :i esa lqus tkus dk volj Hkh fn;k tk;sA ¼x½ ;fn vkjksi&i= ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k izkIr u gks ;k izLrqr fd;k x;k Li"Vhdj.k vlarks"ktud gks rks l{ke izkf/kdkjh mls vko’;d leqi;qDr n.M ns ldrk gSA ¼2½¼d½ ;fn dksbZ deZpkjh ,sls vkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij ftlds dkj.k fdlh vijkf/kd vkjksi ij fl) nks"k gqvk gS] inP;qr fd;k tkrk gS vFkok gVk;k tkrk gS] ;k ¼[k½ ;fn deZpkjh Qjkj gks x;k gS QsMjs’ku dks rhu ekl ls vf/kd ls mlds BkSj fBdkus dk irk ugha gS ;k ¼x½ ;fn deZpkjh fcuk Ik;kZIr dkj.kksa ls tkap drkZ vf/kdkjh ds le{k tc mls fofufnZ"Vrk fyf[kr :i esa gkftj gksus ds fy;s cqyk;k tk;s] gkftj ls bUdkj djrk gS vFkok gkftj ugha gksrk gS] ;k ¼?k½ ;fn mls vU;Fkk¼mu dkj.kks ls tks vfHkfyf[kr fd;s tk;saxs½ lalwfpr djuk lEHko ugha gS] rks l{ke izkf/kdkjh vuq’kklfud dk;Zokgh fcuk fd;s ;k fcuk tkjh j[ks leqfpr n.M ns ldrk gSA ¼3½ QsMjs’ku }kjk fdlh deZpkjh ds fo:) vuq’kklfud dk;Zokgh fujh{k.k drkZ vf/kdkjh vFkok QsMjs’ku ds ,sls vf/kdkjh }kjk ftlds fu;a=.kk/khu deZpkjh dk;Z dj jgk gS] bl vk’k; dh fjiksVZ fn;s tkus ij dh tk;sxhA ¼4½ tkap drkZ] vf/kdkjh] fu;qfDRk izkf/kdkjh vFkok fu;qfDRk izkf/kdkjh }kjk bl iz;kstu ds fy;s izkf/kd`r QsMjs’ku ds fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxk% izfrcU/k ;g gS fd og vf/kdkjh] ftldh izsj.kk ls vuq’kklfud dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh x;h gS] tkapdrkZ vf/kdkjh rSukr ugha fd;k tk;sxk vkSj u gh tkap drkZ vf/kdkjh vihy izkf/kdkjh gksxkA ¼5½ fuyEcu%& ;fn dksbZ deZpkjh fuEufyf[kr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fu;qfDRk izkf/kdkjh vFkok bl iz;kstu ds fy, izkf/kd`r fdlh vU; vf/kdkjh }kjk fuyfEcr fd;k tk ldsxkA ¼d½ tc mDr izkf/kdkjh dks ;g lek/kku gks tk;s fd izFke n`"V;k ekeyk ,slk gS ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i deZpkjh ds gVk;s tkus] inP;qr fd;s tkus ;k inkoufr fd;s tkus dh lEHkkouk gS] ;k ¼[k½ tc mlds vkpj.k ds laca/k esa rqjUr tkap djuk vk’kf;r ;k fopkjk/khu gks vkSj mldk vius in ds vxzrj cuk jguk QsMjs’ku ds fgr esa vfgrdj le>k tk;s] vFkok ¼x½ tc mlds fo:) fdlh ,sls n.Muh; vijk/k dh dksbZ f’kdk;r iqfyl ds vUos"k.kk/khu gks ftlds fy, og fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k gks] ;k Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] mRrj izns’k lgdkjh lfefr vf/kfu;e] 1965 ;k fdlh vU; vf/kfu;r ds v/khu fdlh vijk/k esa mlds fo:) fdlh fof/k U;k;ky; esa fopkj.k gks jgk gks] ;k fdlh n.M U;k;ky; }kjk mlds fo:) vkjksi fopfjr fd;s x;s gksa% izfrcU/k ;g gS fd fuyEcu lsok fu;e 82 ds [k.M¼1½ ds vuqlkj gks rks og ck/;dj gksxkA ¼6½ fuokZg HkRrk%& ¼d½ fuEcuk/khu deZpkjh vius osru ds ,d frgkbZ vkSj egaxkbZ HkRrs ds ,d frgkbZ ds cjkcj fuokZg HkRrk ikus dk gdnkj gksxk% izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ;fn dksbZ deZpkjh tks bl lsok fu;ekoyh ds izo`Rr gksus ds fnukad dks fuyEcUkk/khu gS] rks og osru dk ,slk Hkkx vkSj ,sls HkRrs izkIr djrk jgsxk ftuds fy, mls fuyEcu dh vof/k esa izkIr djus dh vuqefr nh xbZ Fkh% vxzrj izfrcU/k ;g gS fd fuokZg HkRrs dk Hkqxrku rc rd ugh fd;k tk;sxk tc rd fd deZpkjh us bl ckr dk izek.k i= u fn;k gks vkSj fuyEcu dk vkns’k nsus okyh izkf/kdkjh dks ;g lek/kku u gks tk;s fd deZpkjh fuyEcuk/khu vof/k ds nkSjku fdlh vU; lsok ;kstu] dkjckj o`fRr vFkok O;olk; esa ugha yxk Fkk vkSj mlus mlds fy;s dksbZ ikfjJfed vftZr ugha fd;k gS rFkk lEc) dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksrk jgk gSA ¼[k½ ;fn fuyEcu dh vof/k lEc) dEkZpkjh dh fdlh =qfV ds fcuk N% ekl ls vkxs rd dh tk;s rks fuokZg HkRrk mlds osru vkSj eagxkbZ HkRrs ds vk/ks rd c ¼x½¼1½ tc dksbZ deZpkjh cgky fd;k tk;sxk rks cgkyh dk vkns’k nsus ds fy, l{ke izkf/kdkjh fuyEcu dh vof/k ds fy;s fn;s tkus okys osru rFkk HkRrksa rFkk mDRk vof/k dk;Z ij O;rhr dh xbZ vof/k ekuh tk;sxh] ;k ugha ds lECkU/k eas lqLi"V vkns’k nsxk% izfrcU/k ;g gS fd tgka cgkyh dk vkns’k nsus okys izkf/kdkjh dh jk; gks fd deZpkjh iw.kZr;k nks"keqDr dj fn;k x;k gS ;k fuyEcu iwjh rkSj ls vuqfpr Fkk] ogka deZokjh dks iwjk osru rFkk HkRrs] ftuds fy;s og ;fn fuyEcu u fd;k x;k gksrk gdnkj gks] fn;s tk;saxsA ¼2½ ,sls ekeyksa esa tks iwoZorhZ mi[k.M¼1½ ds izfrcU/kkRed [k.M ds vUrxZr ugha vkrs gS] deZpkjh dks osru rFkk HkRrksa dk ,slk vuqikr fn;k tk;sxk tSlk l{ke vf/kdkjh vkns’k nsaA ¼?k½ [k.M¼x½¼1½ ds izfrcU/kkRed [k.M ds vUrXkZr vkus okys ekeyksa esa fuyEcu dh vof/k leLr iz;kstuksa ds fy;s dk;Z ij O;rhr dh xbZ vof/k ekuh tk;sxhA ¼M½ [k.M ¼x½¼2½ ds vUrxZr vkus okys ekeyksa esa fuyEcu dh vof/k dk;Z ij O;rhr dh xbZ vof/k ugha ekuh tk;sxh] tc rd fd l{ke izkf/kdkjh lqLi"Vr% ;g funsZ’k u nsa fd og bl :i esa ekuh tk;sA ¼p½ fuyEcUk vkns’k Hkwry{kh fnukad ls izHkkoh ugha gksxkA ¼N½ fdlh fuyEcuk/khu deZpkjh dks dksbZ vodk’k ns; ugha gksxk vkSj u mls dksbZ vodk’k Lohdkj fd;k tk;sxkA og fdlh vU; ykHk ds Hkh ikus dk gdnkj ugha gksxkA ¼t½ dksbZ deZpkjh ftlds fo:) ;k rks _.k ds fy;s ;k fdlh n.Muh; vkjksi ds fy;s mldh fxjQ~rkjh dh dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gks] ;k ftls fuokjd fujks/k ds fy;s fdlh fof/k ds v/khu fu:) fd;k x;k gks] ml vof/k ds fy;s] ftl vof/k ds nkSjku og bl izdkj vfHkj{kk esa fu:) j[kk x;k gS ;k dkjkokl esa jgk gS fuyEcuk/khu le>k tk;sxk vkSj mls ,slh vof/k ds fy, mi[k.M¼d½ vkSj ¼[k½ ds v/khu vuqeU; fuokZg HkRrs ds vfrfjDRk dksbZ osru rFkk HkRrk ugha fn;k tk;sxk] tc rd fd ;FkkfLFkfr] mlds fo:) dh xbZ dk;Zokgh lekIr u gks tk;s ;k mls fujks/k ls eqDRk u dj fn;k tk;s vkSj mls iqu% dk;Z ij mifLFkfr gksus dh vuqefr u ns nh tk;sA ¼7½ tqekZus dh n’kk esa tqekZus dh dqy /kujkf’k vk/ks ekl ds osru ;k etnwjh lank; vf/kfu;e 1936] tgka ;g vf/kfu;e lEc) deZpkjh ij iz;ksT; gks] ds v/khu izHkk;Z vf/kdre tqekZus ls vf/kd ugha gksxh vkSj ;g mlds osru ls ekfld fdLrksa esa dkVh tk;sxh rFkk izR;sd ,slh fdLr mlds ekfld osru ds ,d pkSFkkbZ ls vf/kd ugha gksxhA ¼8½ fuyEcu vkns’k¼d½ ml izkf/kdkjh }kjk ftlus ,slk vkns’k fn;k gks] ;k ¼[k½ fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk] izfrlag`r fd;k tk ldsxk ;fn mlds izfrlagj.k ds fy, Ik;kZIr dkj.k gksa vkSj ftUgsa izfrlagj.k ds vkns’k esa vfHkfyf[kr fd;k tk;sxkA ¼9½ dksbZ Hkh deZpkjh lkekU;rk N% ekl ls vf/kd fuyEcuk/khu ugh jgsxk% izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ;g ’krZ ,sls ekeyksa eas ugha ykxw gksxh tgka fuyEcu fdlh vijkf/kd vkjksi ;k U;k;ky; ds funsZ’k ij fd;k x;k gS% 85- vihy% lsok fu;e 83 [k.M ¼1½ ds mi[k.M ¼d½ ls ¼?k½ ds v/khu 'kkfLr vkjksi djus ds vkns’kksa dh vihy ifjf’k"V *?k* esa mfYyf[kr izkf/kdkfj;ksa ds le{k dh tk ldsxhA 86- lsok fu;e la[;k 83 ds [k.M ¼1½ ds mi[k.M ¼M-½ ls ¼N½ ds v/khu 'kkfLr vkjksfir djus ds vkns’k flok; e.My dh iwoZ lgefr ds ugha fd;s tk;saxsA^^ 19. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet as well as supplementary charge-sheet dated 26.10.2013 and 21.12.2013, respectively. In the said charge-sheet as well as supplementary charge-sheet, it was specifically mentioned that in case petitioner wants to produce any defence witness and wants an opportunity of personal hearing; then, he shall specifically request for the same in his reply to the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet. 20. The petitioner had submitted his reply dated 11.11.2013 to the charge-sheet and reply dated 3.1.2014 to the supplementary charge-sheet denying the charges made against him. The Enquiry Officer thereafter proceeded to hold the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report dated 23.1.2014. The perusal of enquiry report indicates that after submission of reply to the charge-sheet as well as supplementary charge-sheet the Enquiry Officer had fixed the date for holding oral enquiry and in this regard oral enquiry was held on 16.1.2014. The Enquiry Officer considering the charge-sheet, evidence relied in support of the charges, reply as well as evidence relied in defence and the relevant records and thereafter came to conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been found proved and he is guilty of the alleged misconduct. 21. It is to be noted that the petitioner did not make any request for producing any defence witness during enquiry nor any request to cross-examine any person whose letter or report was relied in support of the charges was made. Neither in the replies submitted to the charge-sheet as well as supplementary charge-sheet nor by any separate letter, the petitioner had made any request to the Enquiry Officer to produce any defence witness or to cross-examine any person in order to deny the alleged charges. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence on record had come to conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are found proved. 22. In the given facts and circumstances, it is very much clear that the Enquiry Officer had followed the procedure prescribed in concluding the enquiry and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. 23. So far as the contention that the petitioner was not given opportunity to submit his reply to the enquiry report is concerned, it is to be noted that the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 24.4.2014 and along with the said show cause notice enquiry report dated 23.1.2014 was annexed. 23. So far as the contention that the petitioner was not given opportunity to submit his reply to the enquiry report is concerned, it is to be noted that the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 24.4.2014 and along with the said show cause notice enquiry report dated 23.1.2014 was annexed. The petitioner was called upon to submit his reply on the proposed punishment as mentioned in the said show cause notice. He was also informed that if he wants an opportunity of personal hearing and wants to produce any witness, etc. in his defence, he may inform and in this regard may give the details of the names of witnesses and their addresses. It was clarified that at the time of hearing, he will have to produce his witnesses at his own expenses. 24. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 21.5.2014 to the said show cause notice. In this reply it was submitted that he has to submit many documents and produce witnesses which is possible only in oral enquiry. In the oral enquiry, several persons were required to be cross-examined, however, they were not cross-examined. The opportunity of personal hearing cannot take the place of oral enquiry. He shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing only after holding oral enquiry. He shall not be burdened to bear the expenses of producing the defence witnesses. 25. The perusal of the impugned order clearly goes to indicate that the Disciplinary Authority before passing the impugned order had given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in this regard the petitioner was heard by the Disciplinary Authority, Managing Director, PCF on 12.6.2014. After considering the entire material on record and reply to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority by a detailed order had come to conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him and, as such, liable to be punished by awarding punishment of dismissal from service. The competent authority has passed a detailed and reasoned order to award the punishment to the petitioner. 26. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, we are of the considered view that the contention raised by the petitioner has no force and the order impugned awarding punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner is in accordance with law. 27. The competent authority has passed a detailed and reasoned order to award the punishment to the petitioner. 26. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, we are of the considered view that the contention raised by the petitioner has no force and the order impugned awarding punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner is in accordance with law. 27. So far as the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned punishment order has been passed in most arbitrary and discriminatory manner and the petitioner has been made escape goat to save the skin of superior officers, suffice is to note that a criminal case being case Crime No. 150 of 2013 with regard to the embezzlement and non-supply of paddy to the authorised rice mills was lodged against the transporter, namely, Arun Kumar under Sections 406/420 IPC by the District Manager, PCF, Hardoi but during the investigation the involvement of petitioner was found, thereafter Sections 409, 467 and 468 were added. The petitioner was arrested and sent to jail on 2.9.2014. The petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 23.12.2014 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 7255 (B) of 2014. In this regard, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against Mr. Narendra Singh, the then Senior Regional Manager, PCF, Mr. Avanish Chandra Tiwari, District Manager, PCF, Hardoi and Mr. Brijesh Kumar Maurya, Assistant Accountant, PCF, Hardoi. On the basis of disciplinary proceedings held against them, the competent authority vide separate orders dated 17.7.2014 awarded the punishment of special adverse entry, recovery of loss caused to the PCF in the ration of 10% of Rs. 14,21,680/-i.e., Rs. 1,42,168/-and stoppage of one annual increment permanently of Mr. Narendra Singh, Senior Regional Manager whereas special adverse entry, recovery of loss caused to the PCF in the ratio of 15% of Rs. 14,21680/-and half of Rs. 2,00,850/-i.e., Rs. 3,13,677/-and stoppage of three annual increments permanently of Mr. Avanish Chandra Tiwari, District Manager, PCF, Hardoi and special adverse entry, recovery of loss caused to the PCF in the ratio of 15% pf Rs/ 14,21,680/-i.e., Rs. 2,13,252/-and stoppage of two annual increments permanently of Sri Brijesh Kumar Maurya, Assistant Accountant. The competent authority has awarded punishment to the concerning employees who were found guilty of the alleged charges taking into consideration their involvement in the same and the extent of misconduct committed by them. 2,13,252/-and stoppage of two annual increments permanently of Sri Brijesh Kumar Maurya, Assistant Accountant. The competent authority has awarded punishment to the concerning employees who were found guilty of the alleged charges taking into consideration their involvement in the same and the extent of misconduct committed by them. The competent authority after taking into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the petitioner has awarded punishment of dismissal from service and fastened the liability of loss caused to the PCF in the ratio of 60% of Rs. 14,21,680/-and 50% of Rs. 2,00,850/-i.e., total of Rs. 9,53,433/-. We do not find any discrimination in the punishment awarded to the persons found guilty of the misconduct and, as such, the contention raised in this regard is totally misconceived. 28. So far as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raghunath Singh Rana and others (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, is concerned, the Apex Court has held that it is mandatory requirement of a disciplinary enquiry that oral enquiry shall be held when the charges are refuted. Relevant paragraph 22 is reproduced below: “22. From the proposition of law, as enunciated by Apex Court as noted above, and the facts of the present case, we arrive at the following conclusions: (a) After service of charge sheet dated 16.01.1993 although the Petitioners submitted his reply on 04.02.1993 but neither Inquiry Officer fixed any date of oral inquiry nor any inquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer. (b) Mandatory requirement of a disciplinary inquiry i.e. is holding of an inquiry when the charges are refuted and serving the inquiry report to the delinquent has been breached in the present case. (c) The employee/Respondent No. 1 having not been given opportunity to produce his witnesses in his defence and having not been given an opportunity of being heard in person, the statutory provisions as enshrined in Regulation 85(i)(b), have been violated. (d) The Disciplinary Authority issued show case notice dated 04.05.1993 to the employee/Respondent No. 1 without holding of an inquiry and subsequent resolution by Disciplinary Authority taken in the year 2000 without their being any further steps is clearly unsustainable. The High Court has rightly quashed the dismissal order by giving liberty to the bank to hold de-novo inquiry within a period of six months, if it so desires. The High Court has rightly quashed the dismissal order by giving liberty to the bank to hold de-novo inquiry within a period of six months, if it so desires. (e) The bank shall be at liberty to proceed with the Disciplinary Inquiry as per directions of the High Court in paragraph (1) of the judgment. The High Court has already held that Petitioner shall be deemed to be under suspension and shall be paid suspension allowance in accordance with rules.” 29. In the present case, the perusal of the enquiry report clearly indicates that oral enquiry was held and in this regard a date was fixed by the Enquiry Officer and on that date the oral enquiry was held. The petitioner was also provided copy of the enquiry report and was also provided the opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order, as such, we are of the considered view that the judgment relied by the petitioner is of no assistance to him. 30. So far as the judgments of this Court in the case of Krishna Kishore Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and another, [2010 (28) LCD 528] as well as in the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma vs. Managing Director and another, [(2000) 1 UPLBEC 5411] and in the case of Yog Narain Dubey vs. Managing Director and others, [2011 (29) LCD 2024] reference of which have been made by the petitioner in the writ petition are concerned, in the case of Krishna Kishore Srivastava (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has held that the burden to prove charges rest on the shoulder of the prosecution ad even if the delinquent employee had not asked for oral enquiry, the Enquiry Officer shall hold oral enquiry to prove the charges. In the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma (supra), it has been held that the order of dismissal so passed in violation of principles of natural justice and not following the procedure prescribed by law, as such, was invalid. In the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma (supra), it has been held that the order of dismissal so passed in violation of principles of natural justice and not following the procedure prescribed by law, as such, was invalid. In the case of Yog Narain Dubey (supra), the Court has held that the Enquiry Officer submitted the report finding the charge proved against the petitioner on the basis of reply filed to the charge-sheet, copies of documents demanded by the petitioner were not supplied to him and no date for enquiry was fixed, the documents relied upon by the department were not provided in such situation the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated. 31. In the present case, we have come to conclusion that the disciplinary enquiry was conducted as per the procedure prescribed and there was no violation of principles of the natural justice, the Enquiry Officer had held oral enquiry by fixing a date for that purpose and the Disciplinary Authority had provided opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. He was also provided copy of the enquiry report calling upon him to submit his reply. The proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court as enumerated in the aforesaid judgments are not disputed, however, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 32. So far as the challenge to the vires of Rule 84 (i) (b) and (c) of the Rules of 1980 is concerned, no serious arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for petitioner. It has not been argued as to how and in what manner the said Rule is violative and is not intra vires. It is to be observed that the vires of any provision cannot be challenged in a casual manner and it is the responsibility of the petitioner to establish before the Court that such a provision is not intra vires. Neither any pleadings have been made in this regard nor any arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for petitioner to show that the Rule 84 (i) (b) (c) is ultra vires in any manner. Even otherwise, we do not find that the said Rule violates the principles of natural justice or transgress Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 33. Even otherwise, we do not find that the said Rule violates the principles of natural justice or transgress Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 33. In view of above, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.