IMPORTANT POINT
An employer can impose only one penalty under Regulation 84, and the burden of proof lies with the employer in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This matter has been heard on rather unconventional pleadings. On the 25th of August, 2023, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought time to file a supplementary-affidavit, when the matter came up for admission. The writ petition was, accordingly, adjourned to 12th of September, 2023. A further adjournment was sought on that day. A supplementary-affidavit was filed in Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on 27.9.2023, when time was granted to file a supplementary counter-affidavit. The learned Counsel for the respondents filed a supplementary counter-affidavit on 11.10.2023. On that day, the parties did not press for further affidavits; not even a counter-affidavit to the writ petition. The matter was, accordingly, admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith, leading to judgment being reserved.

2. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 26th July, 2023 passed by the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer, Mainpuri District Cooperative Bank Ltd., punishing the petitioner after disciplinary proceedings with reversion from the post of Branch Manager Grade-II to Manager Grade-III, and, further, directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,53,480/- together with 6% interest on account of loss caused to the Bank.

3. The District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mainpuri is a Cooperative Bank governed by the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act of 1965') and service conditions of their employees are governed by the U.P. Cooperative Societies' Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 (for short, 'the Regulations'). The petitioner is employed with the Mainpuri District Cooperative Bank Ltd. (for short, 'the Bank') as a Branch Manager. He was posted as the Branch Manager at the Bhogaon Branch of the Bank. The Committee of Management of the Bank is the petitioner's appointing authority, which comprises the Board of Directors thereof. The Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, who is the Secretary of the Committee of Management, exercises all administrative powers conferred upon him for the purpose of managing the affairs of the Bank.

4. The petitioner was appointed a Clerk/Cashier in the year 2009. He was promoted to the post of the Junior Branch Manager in the year 2014. It is his case that he has been working to the satisfaction of higher officials of the Bank. The petitioner was posted as the Branch Manager at the Bhogaon Branch, District Mainpuri with effect from 1.9.2021. The petitioner has pleaded for a fact that as the Branch Manager, he was not assigned any role in dealing with direct cash deposits made by customers. The duties assigned to the petitioner at the Bhogaon Branch were to supervise the activities of various functionaries at the Branch, and, at the end of the day, make a tally of the balance-sheet with the cashier. In case, the cashier did not enter any cash deposit in the book, there are no means, according to the petitioner, to know about it, unless there was a complaint. The petitioner says that the genesis of the orders impugned, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that on 20.7.2022, a customer approached the Bank to make some payment through RTGS. That payment, however, could not be made because of insufficient funds. He complained in the matter to the petitioner and when the petitioner personally inquired into it, he found that it was the cashier of the Bank, who would deposit receipts but not credit the customer's account. To safeguard the interest of the Bank and the customer, the petitioner called upon the cashier, one Harish Chandra Gautam, and confronted him with the customer's complaint. The cashier admitted his guilt in writing as also the fact that he had not posted the customer's account with credits of deposit made by the latter. The petitioner made the cashier write a letter on 20.7.2022 and it was retained on record. The petitioner was confronted with the situation that called for disciplinary action against the cashier. He i