The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to conduct a proper departmental enquiry, especially in cases involving major penalties, violates the principles of natural justice and renders the disciplinary proceedings invalid.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 17.06.2021 passed by the Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Ghazipur, dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative, U.P. Lucknow, rejecting the petitioner’s representation against the said order.

2. The petitioner’s husband was a Branch Manager at the District Cooperative Bank, Ghazipur. He died in harness on 17.09.2007. After his death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and the Bank aforesaid, who are arrayed as respondent Nos.2 and 3 to this petition, considered the petitioner’s case, finding her fit to be appointed. Orders in this regard were passed on 26.04.2008 by respondent No. 2. The petitioner, acting on the order of appointment, joined on 29.04.2008. She was posted at the Head Office of the District Cooperative Bank, Ghazipur. Later on, the petitioner was transferred and posted as a Clerk/Cashier in the Jangipur Branch of the District Cooperative Bank in the month of January, 2012.

3. According to the petitioner, misfortune befell her, when she was placed under suspension, pending enquiry vide an order dated 21.06.2018. Alongside the petitioner, the Branch Manager of the Bank, Ashok Kumar Singh was also placed under suspension. The basis of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was a preliminary enquiry report dated 12.06.2018. It was submitted by a Section Officer (Audit) to the Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Bank Ltd. The report had opined that the petitioner, in collusion with the Branch Manager, had made certain payments in dormant accounts worth Rs.5,49,934/- contrary to norms of the Reserve Bank of India. It was also found that further payment of a sum of Rs.1,24,028/- in eight accounts, which were dead accounts, had also been made, besides settlement of an overdraft of Rs.5,000/- in a dormant account.

4. In consequence of whatever was found in the preliminary inquiry or the impressions formed on its basis, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 22.11.2018, laying three charges against her, to wit:

5. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 14.01.2019 and in the opening part said that despite the letters dated 04.12.2018 and 08.01.2019, she was not supplied the proof of charges, which have been laid against her. It was pleaded that the payment of Rs.1,35,028/- had been done on the directions of the Branch Manager, who was authorised to check the signatures on the withdrawal form and tally these with the photographs. She was not authorised to tally the signatures and photographs of the account holders. It was also said that in the ledger account, there was no entry or note that the account holder is dead. As regards Charge No. 2, the petitioner said in brief that the overdraft in the seven accounts had been made as the earlier withdrawal forms were not entered/posted in the ledger account. Therefore, it was not clear whether there was sufficient balance in the account or not and the petitioner proceeded to make payments.

6. Answering Charge No. 3, it has been said by the petitioner that carrying out the KYC exercise in accordance with norms was the duty for the Branch Manager, who failed to carry it out.

It was not remotely the petitioner’s duty to verify the KYC relating to the account holder before making payments. The petitioner, accordingly, said that she deserved to be exonerated.

7. It is the petitioner’s case that after she had submitted a reply, the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer, Ghazipur issued a show cause notice dated 12.04.2019, without a copy of the enquiry report, saying that the Inquiry Officer had considered the petitioner’s reply dated 14.01.2019, examined the documents and found all the charges against the petitioner to be proved. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to submit a reply within fifteen days, stating why her service