Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Sarv U.P. Gramin Bank has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2008 of the High Court of U.P. (Lucknow Bench) in Writ Petition No. 1753 (SB) of 2002. By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court relying upon judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 quashed the impugned orders dated 3.4.2000, annexure P-4; 3.4.2002, annexure P-5 and 9.9.2002 annexure P-6 to the writ petition with consequential benefits. Liberty has been granted to the Bank to serve fresh show cause notice along with copy of the enquiry report on the writ petitioner (respondent herein) and to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
(3.) We may notice here the essential facts leading to the passing of the aforesaid judgment/order of the High Court. The writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) joined Devi Pattan Kshetria Gramin Bank, Gonda (now Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank) as an officer. He was served with two charge sheets dated 9.11.2000 and 8.3.2001 for various acts of omissions and commissions while working at branches Khorhansa and Mahrajganj, Trai district Gonda respectively. He was suspended by Order dated 1.3.2001. Respondent submitted reply to the chargesheet. He denied the charges mentioned therein. Thereafter, two separate departmental enquiries were held, in which the respondent fully participated. On 19.5.2001, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report with regard to chargesheet dated 9.11.2000. Charge No. 1 has been split up into Charge 1-A and Charge 1-B respectively. Charge No. 1-A has been held to be proved whereas Charge 1-B has been held to be partially proved. Similarly Charges No. 2 to 3 have been split up into two parts each, i.e., Charges 2-A, 2-B; 3-A and 3-B. Here also Charge 2-A has been held to be proved, Charge 2-B is held to be partially proved; Charge 3-A is said to be proved, 3-B is held to be partially proved.;