Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 8.5.2014 and 3.6.2006 passed by the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank, Ltd., respondent No. 2 and with a further prayer to issue direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to treat the services of the petitioner from 7.2.1996 to 7.6.2006 “in continuity from the period of suspension” and to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

2. The brief facts relevant for deciding the controversy are that the petitioner Chandra Bhan Singh was initially engaged in 1976 as Field Officer in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. through the selection of U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board Lucknow. An inquiry was initiated against the petitioner in 1996 on the charges of financial and other irregularities and the petitioner was placed under suspension in February, 1996. The petitioner was charged with negligence in performance of his duties and when the Regional Manager inspected the Bank Branch in Jhansi, where the petitioner was Branch Manager and the loan files prepared under the supervision of the petitioner were found incomplete and the Regional Manager had, therefore, come to the conclusion that the proposed loans were passed on forged documents.

3. The Inquiry Officer had considered the evidence and had recorded a finding that no financial loss had occurred to the Bank, but there was a full possibility that such loss would have occurred if such irregularity had not been detected by the Regional Manager. On this finding of the Inquiry Officer, the Appointing Authority had dismissed the petitioner.

4. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal dated 9.6.1997 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23033 of 1997 (Chandra Bhan Singh v. Managing Director U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.) on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner in the regular disciplinary proceedings and the order of dismissal was not proportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. This Court found that even if the findings of the Inquiry Officer were to be accepted, there was no financial loss caused to the Bank, and therefore, the petitioner did not deserve the order of dismissal for embezzlement. This Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 9.6.1996 and directed the respondents to reconsider the quantum of punishment to be imposed upon the petitioner keeping in view the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer with respect to the main charge.

5. After the Writ Petition No. 23033 of 1997 was allowed by this Court on 6.10.2005, the Managing Director of the Bank cancelled the order of dismissal and reinstated the petitioner on 3.6.2006 by imposing three penalties. Five increments of the petitioner were stopped with cumulative effect, besides censure entry was directed to be recorded in his service record and the period the petitioner remained under suspension i.e. from February, 1996 till the order of reinstatement in June, 2006 was to be treated as period not spent on duty, and therefore for the said period on the principle of “no work no pay”, no remuneration was given to the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow, which was partly allowed on 13.12.2006 and the order of punishment of withholding five increments cumulatively was modified to the extent that only one increment was to be withheld permanently. A further direction was issued to the petitioner to approach the Bank with regard to other penalties imposed i.e. of censure entry and non payment of salary during the period when the petitioner remained out of service. The petitioner again approached the Chairman of the Bank, the respondent No. 3 on 6.1.2007. The representation of the petitioner was kept pending till 20.10.2008 when it was rejected as time barred