Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Mr. L.K. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record pertaining to disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the order of dismissal dated 5.1.2002 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Sahakari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as under :

Petitioner-Rakesh Kumar Sharma was appointed on the post of Kisan Sewak on 16.10.1976 temporarily. Later on, the post of Kisan Sewak was designated as Assistant Field Officer. His services were governed by service rules known as “The Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975” and “U.P. Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Employees Service Rules, 1976”.

4. According to the petitioner, while working as Assistant Filed Officer, a proposal for sanctioning loan of Rs. 2,000/- for installing pumping set was prepared by the petitioner on 26.12.1983 and the same was recommended by the Field Officer on 27.12.1983. Thereafter, on 27.12.1983, Non-Encumberance Certificate was also issued by the Lawyer of the Department after examining twelve years’ revenue record. Subsequently, on 29.8.1990, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that while working as Assistant Field Officer at Branch Dhampur, Bijnore, he has made irregularity in distributing the loan amount. A charge-sheet dated 9.8.1991 was served upon the petitioner. On receipt of the charge-sheet dated 9.8.1991, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 24.8.1991, denying all the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 13.3.1992, to which also the petitioner submitted his reply.

5. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after submission of the reply to the charge-sheet as well as supplementary charge-sheet, the Enquiry Officer, without conducting any enquiry, fixing date, time and place and without considering his reply, submitted its report on 29.10.1993. On the basis of ex parte inquiry report dated 29.10.1993, a show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 30.7.2001, to which the petitioner had submitted its reply. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Managing Director of the Bank, without considering his reply, dismissed the petitioner vide order dated 5.1.2002, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

6. Further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that ex parte enquiry report was given to the petitioner on 29.10.1993 but nothing has been done for more than eight years upto 30.7.1991 and during this period, there was no complaint against the petitioner. Further, no date, time and place for holding enquiry was fixed rather no witness was examined either in the presence or at the back of the petitioner in the so called enquiry. It has also been submitted that there is no loss as alleged amount of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest has been deposited by the loaner through receipt No. 65856/05 on 6.2.1995 and the said loan account No. 169 of 1996 was closed.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in an identical cases i.e. in the case of Sri Krishana Pal Rahi, who was also holding the post of Assistant Field Officer and was placed under suspension for more than 38 charges in submission of frivolous Khasra and Khatauni and in the case of Shri Dev Narain Singh, who was holding the post of Branch Manager, Branch Atrauli, the punishing authority has awarded the punishment of censure entry but in the case of the petitioner, order of dismissal was passed by the punishing authority, which is too not commensurate to the charges levelled against him.

8. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the