The inquiry proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and regulations, and the disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted with due observance of the principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Shri. Piyush Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this court by means of the present writ petition challenging the punishment order dated 24.05.2010 and the suspension order dated 24.06.2008 with a further prayer to pay all the arrears of wages, salary including all the allowances, benefits from the date of suspension i.e. 24.06.2008 along with appropriate interest.

3. Brief facts of the case for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Branch Manager (Class-II post), at the relevant point of time, in the respondent-Co-operative Bank. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated vide order dated 15.11.2007 passed by the Managing Director of the bank in respect of loan case of Shri. Mahaveer son of Sri. Jamuna Prasad disbursed during the period of working of the petitioner at Hathwanth Branch, District Firozabad along with other charges. Shri. Ravi Kant, Incharge Agra Division/Assistant General Manager of the bank was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. A charge sheet dated 04.02.2008 containing 8 charges was issued and served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet dated 04.02.2008 vide his letter dated 09.04.2008.

4. The petitioner was suspended on the allegation of dereliction in discharge of duties by means of order dated 24.06.2008 passed by the Managing Director of the bank as he came late in the office on 16.06.2008 while he was working at Alapur Branch of the Bank in district Badaun and another disciplinary proceeding was instituted. A charge sheet dated 14.07.2008 in respect of his unauthorized absence on 16.06.2008 up to 1 p.m. and dereliction in discharge of duties and not taking interest in important works was issued and served on the petitioner.

5. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet dated 14.07.2008, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. Thereafter the inquiry reports dated 08.04.2008 and 20.10.2008 were submitted. In pursuance thereof a show cause notice dated 26.12.2008 was issued and served to the petitioner proposing the punishment of dismissal from the Bank service and recovery of Rs. 4,74,603/- up to the extent of 40% of it from the dues of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 14.01.2009 to the show-cause notice, in which he opposed and protested the proposed punishment on several grounds. Since the punishment of dismissal can be given only after obtaining concurrence from the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board as per Regulation 87 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred as Regulations, 1975), therefore, the petitioner made a request to the Sachiv of the Service Board (opposite party No. 5) to afford the opportunity of personal hearing provided under Business Rule No. 30 of the Service Board before giving concurrence/consent to the proposed punishment of dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner was called for personal hearing on 30.05.2009. The petitioner appeared and submitted his written statement before the Member (Administration) in which he put up all his defence points against the proposed punishment of dismissal. The petitioner again sent a letter dated 14.01.2010 to Service Board submitting the special facts to be considered in respect to the discrimination made by the employer bank in awarding lessor punishment to Shri. Sudhir Kumar, Senior Manager and Shri. Dev Narayan Singh, Branch Manager in similar circumstances.

6. The Board accorded its concurrence to the proposed punishment. In pursuance thereof the punishment order dated 24.05.2010 was passed by means of which the petitioner has been dismissed from service and recovery of 40% of Rs. 4,74,603/- from the dues of the petitioner in case the same is not recovered and rec