JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Desh Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No.1- State and Sri Balram Yadav, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2&3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2007 (Annexure No.1) passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 30.09.2003 (annexure-5) with a further prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 to release the amount of Rs.42,403/-along with interest of 14% that has been illegally deducted in respect of loan case of Sri Ishaq Ali.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Branch Manager in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd., who after completion of service on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.12.2001.

4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1840 (S/B) of 2001 before this Court against his date of superannuation fixed by the bank at the age of 58 years and claimed parity of 60 years in parity with government employees. The writ petition was admitted and an interim order was passed therein on 21.12.2001, whereby following direction was issued:

"Admit.

Issue notice.

List in the week commencing 14.1.2002. In the meantime it would be open for the U.P. Cooperative Development Bank to consider the Government G.O. with regard to enhancement of age of superannuation of the petitioners to be 60 years. The retirement of the petitioners shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition."

5. The Managing Director of the Bank passed an order on 30.09.2003 on the basis of which an order was passed on 20.02.2007, whereby the disciplinary initiation against the petitioner in the year 1997 was concluded after about two years of his retirement and a recovery of Rs.1,15,000/-along with upto date interest was directed against the petitioner from the dues payable to the petitioner.

6. Against the order dated 30.09.2003, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Board of Directors on 27.10.2003, which was rejected by the appellate authority and information in this regard was furnished to the petitioner by the General Manager (Administration) vide letter No.151609/karmik/2004-05 dated 13.12.2004.

7. For payment of retiral benefits, the petitioner preferred representation dated 18.07.2005 before the Managing Director, however, no heed was paid to the same. When, the request made by the petitioner vide representation dated 18.07.2005 was not replied with, he again filed another representation on 29.08.2006. Thereafter, he filed another representation before respondent No.3 on 19.07.2007 and when no response was received from the department, he contacted the concerned officials of the Bank, where he came to know that his all retiral benefits viz. gratuity, insurance, security and leave encashment etc. were adjusted against the liabilities fixed upon the petitioner and no amount was paid to the petitioner.

8. The petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act asking the action taken in respect of deductions made against his retirement dues and asked to provide copy of the decisions taken in respect thereof. Thereafter, the Jan Suchna Adhikari of the bank supplied the information sought by the petitioner vide letter dated 03.12.2007. By the information so provided, the petitioner came to know that the deductions were made against certain loan amounts disbursed by him in favour of certain persons.

9. In regard to aforesaid deductions, the petitioner made several representations/communications with the bank authorities and when there was no response, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

10. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deductions made from gratuity, leave encashment, security and insurance claim of the petitioner is in violation of Rule 79(1)(d) of the Bank Service Ru