JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri Y.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to 4.

2. By means of the present writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 05.09.2009, whereby the petitioner (now deceased) was dismissed from the services, passed by the respondent No. 2/Managing Director, U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited.

3. The legal heirs of the petitioner, who expired on 27.08.2016, have been substituted in compliance of the order of this Court dated 05.01.2017.

4. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed on Class IV post of Sahyogi in the Head Office of U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. with the approval of the Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and thereafter, he joined the services on 31.07.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted in the year 1991 on the post of Assistant Field Officer and he was posted at Salon Branch of the Bank, District-Raebareli. Thereafter, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Assistant Filed Officer to the post of Sahyogi and the said reversion order was challenged by him by means of the Writ Petition No. 210 (S/S) of 1993.

5. It is stated that in the aforesaid writ petition, the interim order was passed on 22.01.1993 and subsequently, the writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 20.09.2012 and despite the judgment and order passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner, he was suspended on 30.08.2005 and charge-sheet dated 08.02.2006 was issued, which was received by the petitioner on 24.04.2006 and vide order dated 28.04.2006, the petitioner demanded the copy of the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet but the same were not provided to the petitioner. No reply to the charge-sheet was filed by the petitioner.

6. Thereafter, the enquiry officer conducted the ex-parte enquiry and submitted his report dated 18.03.2007, which was served to the petitioner vide show cause notice dated 02.05.2008 and thereafter, the impugned order of punishment dated 05.09.2009 was passed, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from the services of the Bank.

7. Assailing the order dated 05.09.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry proceedings carried out by the enquiry officer are in utter violation of Rule 81 of U. P. Rajya Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Employees Services Rules, 1976 (in short "Rules of 1976") framed under Regulation 102 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employee's Service Regulation, 1975, which reads as under:-

"Disciplinary proceedings

(1) The disciplinary proceedings against an employee shall be conducted by the Inquiring Officer appointed by the appointing authority or by an officer of the Bank authorised by the appointing authority. Provided that the officer at whose instance disciplinary action was started shall not be appointed as an Inquiry officer not shall the Inquiry Officer be the appellate authority.

(a) The Inquiry Officer during inquiry shall observe the principles of natural justice for which it shall be necessary that the employee shall be served with a charge sheet containing specific charges, the evidence in support of each charge and he shall be required to submit explanation in respect of the charge within a reasonable time which shall be not less than 15 days.

(b) Such employee shall also be given an opportunity to produce at his own cost or to cross examine witnesses in his defence and shall also be given an opportunity of being heard in person, if he so desires:

(c) If no explanation in respect of charge sheet is received or the explanation submitted is unsatisfactory the competent authority may award him appropriate punishment considered necessary.

(2) (a) Where the employee is dismissed or removed from service on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(b) Where the employee has absconded an