The inquiry against the petitioner was held in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, leading to the quashing of the dismissal order and granting of consequential benefits of service to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Sri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent-State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.06.2008 passed by the opposite party no. 5, by means of which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. He has further prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to produce the orders passed by the District Magistrate/Administrator of the District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Barabanki and the order passed by the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, opposite party no. 6 for according the approval for dismissal of the petitioner and further to quash the same.

3. Brief facts of the case for adjudication of the case in hand are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the lower grade Assistant Cadre in the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Barabanki on 27.11.1981, which is a central society within the meanings of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Subsequently, he was promoted in the clerical cadre and posted as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the main branch of the District Cooperative Bank, Barabanki at Nawabganj. While the petitioner was working as a Clerk/Cashier in the Nawabganj branch, a chargesheet dated 14.10.2004 was issued and served on the petitioner. The charge levelled against the petitioner was for being responsible in the embezzlement alleged to have been committed by Sri Udit Narain Verma, the then Branch Manager of the Bank at Nawabganj Branch for taking loans in his and in the name of his family members on various dates between the year 1999-2000 to 2002-2003. The petitioner submitted an application dated 27.10.2004 bringing in knowledge of the enquiry officer that the chargesheet was not accompanied by the relevant documents and prayed for making available the relevant documents to him. The relevant documents were not made available to the petitioner and under compelling circumstances, he had to submit his reply on 10.12.2004 in which the petitioner had denied the allegations levelled against him.

4. The enquiry was conducted and Sri K.K. Mishra, the Deputy General Manager of the Bank submitted his enquiry report on 10.01.2005. The authorities of the Bank did not agree with the enquiry report and therefore appointed another Deputy General Manager (Administration/Accounts) of the Bank, namely, Sri Praveen Kumar as the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer required the petitioner to submit his case before him within 15 days by means of the letter dated 29.08.2005. The petitioner was also required to submit his defence and if he wanted to tender evidence or present any witness, he should do so by presenting himself before the opposite party no. 4/5 at 12 o’ clock on 05.09.2005. The petitioner appeared on 05.09.2005 before the Enquiry officer and submitted his reply denying the charges and his involvement in the loans taken by Sri Udit Narain Verma and his family members. He had also made prayer for making available relevant documents to him in his reply. The request of the petitioner was not acceded to by the enquiry officer. Thereafter the enquiry officer without holding any enquiry, without fixing any date, time and place and examining any evidence/witness produced against the petitioner submitted the enquiry report dated 08.11.2005.

5. The enquiry report was considered by the Sanchalak Mandal, which did not accord its approval and constituted a three members committee consisting of its Directors for examining the matter. The three members committee submitted its report dated 27.07.2006, in which the committee found that there was violation of principles of natural justice, as the documents were neither got inspected to the petitioner nor the copies were provided to him. The Committee further recorded that most of the amount, alleged to have been embezzled by way of loans, has been deposited. Th