Jyoti Saran, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Shekhar, learned Assisting Counsel to Mr. K.K. Sinha for the Bank and Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned G.P. No. 22 for the State. This writ petition has been filed by the delinquent feeling aggrieved by the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him vide memo dated 19.3.1997 impugned at Annexure-6 together with the charge-sheet dated 19.3.1997 present at Annexure-6/A, the enquiry report dated 28.3.1998 impugned at Annexure-8, the order of the disciplinary authority whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service bearing Memo No. 3/99-2000 dated 23.3.2000 of the Member Secretary, Patna District Cadre Cooperative Society, impugned at Annexure-10 and the appellate order dated 16.11.2002 bearing Memo No. 1761 dated 16.11.2002 passed in Appeal Case No. 3 of 2001 by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society impugned at Annexure-11 to the writ petition. The delinquent writ petitioner has deceased and is substituted by his widow under the orders of this Court passed on 25.11.2014.

2. The issues raised by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to question the entire disciplinary proceedings including the orders impugned, stands indicated in the order of this court passed on 22.9.2016.

3. Mr. Sinha has referred to the order initiating disciplinary proceeding present at Annexure-8 to submit that instead of seeking an explanation from the delinquent, the Managing Director has directed him to file his reply before the Enquiry Officer, appointed by the same order. According to Mr. Sinha any order of disciplinary authority directing the petitioner to report to the Enquiry Officer without satisfying himself whether at all a case for enquiry is made out, is an illegality. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of this court reported in 1996(2) PLJR 95 (Ravindra Nath Singh v. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation) and a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2001)2 SCC 330 (State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna).

4. The second argument advanced by Mr. Sinha to question the proceeding is in reference to the charge-sheet present at Annexure-6/A. He submits that charges are vague and allegations are bald. He next refers to the enquiry report present at Annexure-8 to submit that the Enquiry Officer himself has acted as the Presenting Officer to examine the evidence and to express his opinion thereon, which jurisdiction is not vested in an Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel in support has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 3131 : (2010) 2 SCC 772 (State of UP v. Saroj Kumar Sinha) and a judgment of this court reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 401 (Panchanan Kumar v. Bihar State Electricity Board).

5. Learned counsel explaining the delay in filing the writ petition, has referred to a medical certificate present at Annexure-12 to submit that the deceased writ petitioner was suffering from mental disorder and no sooner has he recovered, that he has moved this Court through present writ petition. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to a judgment of this Court reported in (2014)13 SCC 166 : [2014 (3) PLJR (SC)451] (Chhel Singh v. MGB Gramin Bank) submits that unless certificate is doubted on its genuineness, it has to be accepted.

6. The arguments of Mr. Sinha has been contested by learned counsel appearing for the Bank as well as learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that none of these objections were ever raised by the petitioner at any stage of proceedings. It is further the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that there is an excessive delay on the part of the petitioner to seek legal remedy and the medical certificate is unreliable.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the charge against the petitioner was very serious and the delinquent was charged with defalcation. It is the contention of learned counsel a