Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi along with Sri Salil Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents no. 1,5, 6 and 7.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.08.2005 issued by the Secretary, Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. Lucknow, the opposite party No.3, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. It has been informed at the Bar that had the petitioner been in service, he would have retired on 14.01.2014.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Security Guard in Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow (here-in-after referred to as the 'Bank') on adhoc basis. The services of the petitioner have been regularized on 01.04.1994 in the pay-scale of Rs.312-520. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner in the Bank were confirmed on 01.05.1995.

4. Since the petitioner was President of the Employees Association of the Bank, therefore, the authorities of the Bank were inimical against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that after giving leave application he has allegedly mislead the employees of the different branches of the Bank and was creating hindrance in smooth functioning of the Bank. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the charges levelled against the petitioner were absolutely baseless and misconceived and he was placed under suspension due to malafide exercise of the powers for the reason that the petitioner was office bearer of the Employees Association. Since the explanation was called from the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner demanded certain documents/ evidences for submitting suitable reply to the charges levelled against him, but no demanded documents were provided to the petitioner. It has been noticed that along with the petitioner one Sri Pooran Chand Joshi was also suspended. However, the services of Sri Pooran Chand Joshi were terminated on 26.02.2005, whereas the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with on 17.08.2005.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither the demanded documents were provided to the petitioner nor the departmental enquiry has been conducted strictly in accordance with law inasmuch as the petitioner has never been associated with the enquiry proceedings. As a matter of fact, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the impugned punishment order dated 17.08.2005 submitting that the charges levelled against the petitioner were misconceived on the face of it and the said charges could not have been proved against the petitioner, therefore, he should not have been placed under suspension.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned suspension order does not reveal as to how the departmental enquiry was conducted as per law and what efforts have been taken by the Competent Authority to conduct the departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with law. The perusal of the impugned punishment order dated 17.08.2005 reveals that an ex-parte enquiry was conducted and concluded for the reason that the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. However, it has nowhere been indicated in the punishment order as to how the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. It is settled proposition of law that if the incumbent did not participate in the departmental enquiry willingly and the Disciplinary Authority is of the view that the incumbent should be awarded major punishment, the full fledged enquiry should have been conducted strictly in accordance with law.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that through the entire period of suspension the petitioner has