Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in Letter No.32 dated 01.02.2017 followed by the administrative Order contained in Letter No.33 dated 01.02.2017 and also for quashing the appellate order contained in Letter No.809 dated 29.03.2017 passed by the General Manager-cum-Appellate Authority of the respondent- Bank. The further prayer has been made in the writ petition for quashing of the proposed order contained in Letter No.25 dated 11.01.2017 issued by the disciplinary authority for quashing the enquiry report dated 29.08.2016 of the Enquiry Officer and also quashing the charge sheet and the statement of imputation contained in letter No.700 dated 05.02.2016 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service in terms of Regulation 39(2)(b)(vi) of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Officer and Employees Service Regulation 2010 read with Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Amendment) Regulation, 2013. It has also been prayed to make payment of the petitioner’s salary, pay and allowances for the period he remained under suspension.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank on compassionate ground. The petitioner is a simple matriculate. His first posting was at Raxaul branch and, thereafter, he was sent to Dilawarpur branch. At the relevant time, the branch of the bank was a manual bank and had not been computerized. Counsel submits that he was placed under suspension vide letter No.697 dated 03.02.2016 on the ground of initiation of the departmental proceedings. Learned Senior counsel further submits that charge sheet was drawn vide letter No.700 dated 05.02.2016 in which two charges were levelled against the petitioner. Firstly that the petitioner has wrongfully and without any authority enhanced the credit limits in 93 KCC accounts due to which Bank’s interest has been jeopardizdd and due to his irresponsible behaviour financial loss at the tune of Rs.18,33,387/- was caused to the Bank. The second charge was made that the petitioner made payments in excess of sanction limit in 8 KCC accounts due to which bank’s interest has been jeopardized and on account of irresponsible behaviour financial loss at the tune of Rs.2,43,635/- was caused to the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet and the imputation of the misconduct has been provided to the petitioner but neither list of witnesses nor any documentary evidence has been provided to him. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge has been issued on 05.02.2016 for the alleged wrong has been done of the year 2010. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner has filed a showcause explanation on 20.02.2016 by post, in which complete denial has been made that the loan limit of any of the account has been made by him individually; rather plea has been taken that every enhancement of the limit has been made upon instruction taken by his high Official. It has been mentioned by learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner was advised to take complete bed rest and as such, he could not attend the departmental proceeding regularly but he has submitted his medical certificates on each and every date. But the enquiry officer instead of waiting has proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and no notice of initiation of ex parte proceeding has been served upon the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel further submits that in the enquiry report, both the charges were proved against the petitioner. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner also by the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel submits that in defence of the enquiry report he has submitted his show-cause before the disciplinary authority, but the point which has been raised by the petitioner has not been considered by the disciplinary authorit