Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition, praying for the quashing of the order dated 21.9.1996, passed by respondent No. 2, Secretary/General Manager, District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Etah, whereby, recovery of certain amounts have been directed against the petitioner from his gratuity, after his retirement from service. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondent No. 2 to release the amount of gratuity of the petitioner, by applying new pay scale, alongwith interest for inordinate delay in making payment of the same to the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case of that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Branch Manager in District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Etah, on 14.12.1979, as per U.P. Cooperative Employees Service Regulations, 1975, framed under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. He retired as Senior Branch Manager of the Bank on 30.6.2013. After retirement his provident fund amount of Rs. 19,29,002/- was paid and arrears of new pay scale alongwith leave encashment and group insurance amounts were paid, but the amount of gratuity and security amount were withheld. The respondents calculated the amount of Rs. 8,86,910/- as due gratuity, to which the petitioner objected on the ground that it was not calculated on the basis of his revised last drawn on pay. However, without considering his objections an amount of Rs. 6,12,336/- was paid to the petitioner towards gratuity without any interest on 28.3.2014. The petitioner repeatedly represented for payment of arrears of gratuity with interest and the amount of security to be paid to him, but in vain. Hence he filed the Writ-A No. 32175/2016, praying for direction to the respondent No. 2 to make balance amount of gratuity applying new pay scale alongwith interest, which was disposed off by the order dated 18.7.2016, directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner supplied the copy of the order dated 18.7.2016 of this Court alongwith representation dated 25.7.2016 and by the order dated 21.9.2016, instead of making payment of the amount of gratuity due to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has directed that the petitioner is responsible for sanctioning some bad loans in favour of borrowers and this has resulted into loss to the Bank. The amount which is not being recovered from such borrowers is required to be adjusted from his gratuity and thereafter, the balance amount shall be paid to the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their Counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner had sanctioned loan to one Shri Veerendra Kumar, son of Shri Ganga Dayal, under the Scheme known as Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Cooperative Self Employment Scheme for the sale and purchase of golden jewellery which was against the provision of the said scheme. There were manifold irregularities committed by the petitioner while recommending the loan in as much as the shop of NAGAR PALIKA was shown to be existing on the name of loanee, Shri Veerendrra Kumar, whereas the shop was not allotted in the name of Shri Veerendra Kumar. Further both the guarantors of the loan did not have the requisite amount in their savings bank account. Apart from above, the appraisal report and documents submitted alongwith the loan application form were found to be inappropriate. Inspite of multiple notice, the loan could not be recovered amounting to the tune of Rs. 3,75,000.00 for which the petitioner was responsible and as such no dues certificate was denied by the Branch Manager of Kasganj Branch. Further, the petitioner had himself taken guarantee of consumer loan granted to Shri Vinod Kumar Dubey, retired supervisor, but did not take steps to facilitate the recovery of the loan wh