Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai—learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Baghel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.

2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the dismissal order dated 1.8.2001 issued by the respondent No. 2. A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are :

The petitioner had been working as clerk-cum-cashier in Karma Branch of Allahabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. on allegation of making forged entries in various accounts in the branch causing embezzlement, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.12.1996. The charge-sheet dated 24.5.1997 was served on the petitioner giving details of various account holders with account number, date and the amount to which extent forged entries were made in the account causing embezzlement of Rs. 7, 71, 722/-. Vide charge-sheet the petitioner was charged that the above amount was embezzled by making fictitious and forged entries in various accounts, misappropriate the amount of the Bank and committed fraud with the account holders. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply within fifteen days. It was further stated in the charge-sheet that if the petitioner wants to produce any witness, the same can be submitted. He was asked also to inspect the documents of the Bank if he so desired. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 1.7.1997. In the reply the petitioner admitted that he has made entries in the accounts of various account holders though amount of which was not deposited in the Bank. He alleged that the said amount was taken by the Branch Manager himself. The petitioner in his reply further stated that he told the Branch Manager to get the record corrected and return the amount but the Branch Manager did not do so. The copy of reply has been brought on the record. He further stated in the reply that the entire responsibility is of the Branch Manager. After considering the reply of the petitioner the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 4.9.1997 holding the charge of embezzlement, fictitious entries, misuse of the Bank amount and committing fraud with the account holders, established. The Committee of Management of the Bank considered the reply of the petitioner and decided to issue notice to the petitioner that in case the petitioner does not deposit the embezzled amount along with interest why he be not dismissed from service, legal proceedings be taken for recovery and also a first information report be lodged. In pursuance of the resolution of the Committee of Management of the Bank a notice dated 16.12.1999 was issued to the petitioner. Notice stated that the petitioner after deposing the amount of Rs. 4,85,297/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum should submit an explanation as to why he be not dismissed due to having found guilty of embezzlement. He was also asked to inform as to whether he wants personal hearing or to lead any evidence or witness. It appears that the petitioner prayed for personal hearing and hearing took place by the Committee of Management on 10.3.2000 on which date the petitioner appeared before the Committee of Management of the Bank and was heard. Petitioner gave in writing on 10.3.2000 that out of the amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- due on him he will deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- within two months and the rest amount be recovered from his claims. He explained his claims as Provident Fund and gratuity. Petitioner did not deposit the amount as undertaken by him on 10.3.2000. The matter was taken by the Committee of Management on 28.10.2000. The Committee of Management passed a resolution noticing that out of Rs. 3,85,000/- the petitioner has deposited only Rs. 70,000/- ; hence if he does not deposit the balance amount within ten days he be dismissed from service. The Secretary of the Bank was authorised