Sohan Lal Umrawo vs Sachiv/Mahaprabandhak, Fatehpur District Co-op. Bank Ltd. and another

V.M. Sahai, J.—The petitioner was appointed as Guard in 1963 in District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandpur district Fatehpur. He worked for some time as cashier/ clerk. While working as cashier, he was issued a charge-sheet for embezzlement of funds. In the departmental disciplinary proceedings, he was found guilty of the charges framed against him. The punishing authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner by registered post on 18/21.5.87 as to why the petitioner be not removed from the services. Thereafter, by an order dated 29.4.89 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), the petitioner was removed from the service, with the concurrence of the institutional Service Board. The removal order has been challenged in the instant writ petition.

I have heard Shri B. P. Srlvastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri H. R. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that no show cause notice was served on the petitioner dated 18/21.5.87 and unless the respondents proved that it was actually served upon the petitioner, till then it cannot be presumed to have been served upon the petitioner and the dismissal order was violative of principles of natural justice. He placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Deenanath Shantaram Karekar and others 1998 SCC 1837(Ker) Relying on paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment, the counsel for the petitioner urged that since the show cause notice was not actually served upon him, the removal order passed against him is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand. Shri H. R. Mishra learned counsel for the respondent urged that in the writ petition, it was not stated that the show cause notice 18/21.5.87 was not served upon the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents did not have any opportunity to meet the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. He further points out that in paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the show cause notice was sent by registered post and was served upon the petitioner.

It is well-settled by Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, , that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not exercise the power of appellate court or authority. The scope of interference of the Court is very limited and it can Interfere with the departmental disciplinary proceedings on the ground of non-observance of principle of natural justice. Therefore, unless the case of the petitioner is covered by the exceptions as mentioned by the Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation (supra), the petitioner cannot succeed. The contention of the petitioner that show cause notice was not served upon him is not acceptable, in view of the fact that the show cause notice was sent by the registered post to the petitioner. Moreover, no foundation has been laid in the writ petition that the show cause notice was not served upon him. A letter sent by registered post is presumed to be served unless rebutted. Since the petitioner has not been able to rebut it, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of removal. The order passed by the respondents is liable to be maintained.

In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.