JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

Heard Mr Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr S N Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar State Cooperative Bank Limited (for brevity, the Bank) and Mr U S S Singh, learned GP XIX for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by withholding of his retiral benefits under order dated 22.09.2015. He has sought Patna High Court CWJC No.4533 of 2017 dt.18-02-2021 quashing of the same. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the Resolution dated 23.06.2015 by which the Board of Directors of the Bank decided to forfeit the entire retiral dues of the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought a direction, in the nature of mandamus, to pay Gratuity, Group Insurance and Leave Encashment along with statutory interest to the petitioner who superannuated from service on 30.09.2014.

3. The petitioner was serving in the Bank as Branch Manager. On the last day of his service, i e, 30.09.2014, the petitioner was served a show cause asking him to respond to certain issues based on some letter issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank. The letter, which is enclosed in the show cause dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure P/1) raises an issue regarding some misappropriation in deposits made under the Daily Deposits Scheme (for brevity, DDS) in the Bank.

4. The petitioner has responded to the same on the same date. He has communicated to the Authority that it is not possible to respond to the show cause as it relates to deposit under the Scheme made in the New Market Branch of the Bank and that the same can only be done after he is given an opportunity to examine the accounts being maintained in the New Market Branch. Patna High Court CWJC No.4533 of 2017 dt.18-02-2021

5. Petitioner has again been served a show cause notice dated 21.10.2014 (Annexure P/3) calling upon him to submit his reply in relation to misappropriations in the DDS. The petitioner has again responded to the same under Communication dated 06.11.2014.

6. The Board of Directors of the Bank, thereafter, in a Resolution dated 23.06.2015, has taken a decision to withhold his retirement benefits as also for lodging First Information Report (for brevity, FIR) against the petitioner.

7. At the Bar, it is submitted by Mr. S N Pathak that several other FIRs have been instituted against the petitioner under similar directions in relation to other alleged misappropriations. The other issues, however, are not before this Court.

8. On 22.09.2015, the petitioner has been visited with an Office Order issued by the Deputy General Manager of the Respondent-Bank communicating the Resolution dated 23.06.2015 inasmuch as it directed withholding of the petitioner's retiral benefits. These are the undisputed facts of the case.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this factual background, submits that for the purposes of proceeding against the petitioner on grounds of corruption, there are specific provisions in the Service Regulations of the Bank dated Patna High Court CWJC No.4533 of 2017 dt.18-02-2021 07.06.2013. These Regulations have been framed by the Board of Directors of the Bank in exercise of powers under Section 44 AV of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935. The two specific provisions, relied upon by the petitioner, are Regulations 46 and 52.

10. Regulation 46 provides that major penalties can be imposed by an order of the competent authority in writing. Such order, however, shall not be passed without charge or charges being framed in writing and given to the delinquent. Thereafter, enquiries are to be held affording the delinquent reasonable opportunity to answer the very charges and defend himself.

11. This Court would consider it useful to reproduce Regulations 46 (relevant extract), and 52 which reads as follows:

"(46) Penalties - Without prejudice to the foregoing regulations of this Chapter, an officer or employee who commits a breach of these regulations or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who commits ac