Bhanwar Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioner has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 11.11.1999 whereby he was dismissed from service. Another writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate him with all arrears of his salary and other consequential benefits has also been sought for.
(2.) According to the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner was appointed as Accountant in the year 1969 in U. P. Sahakari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd., then known as U. P. Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank. He was promoted as Field Officer in the year 1973. Since the payscale of the Field Officer and the Accountant was one and the same, he was again placed in the cadre of Accountants in the year 1996 and since then he was continuously working on the said post. He looked after the work of the Field Officer as well. In the year 1994, he was served with a notice to explain regarding irregularities alleged to have been committed by him in getting loans sanctioned to four different agriculturists. The audit team raised an objection that while negotiating for the aforesaid loans, the petitioner had overlooked material points regarding genuineness of documentary evidence on the basis of which loans were sanctioned. On being asked, the petitioner submitted his reply to the audit objection and the then Manager of the Bank made an enquiry and thereafter submitted his report to the Head Office. In his report, the Manager submitted that the petitioner was not responsible at all and no irregularity had been committed by him. In this way, the petitioner was exonerated but to his utter surprise, the Head Office appointed an enquiry officer 20.10.1994. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner who then examined the records and again submitted his reply. The petitioner, however, fell in a trap led by the enquiry officer who showed his inclination of mind that no charge was established and it was on his expression of his intention that the petitioner made an endorsement to the effect that he needed no opportunity of hearing. In the meantime, another enquiry officer was appointed following the transfer of former enquiry officer and proceeding on the reply of the petitioner, the second enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges levelled against him. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses or to adduce his own evidence by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer did not observe the principles of natural justice as neither any date, time or place was fixed for enquiry nor any information was ever conveyed to him in this regard. The four agriculturists who had taken the loans in question had closed their accounts by depositing the entire dues outstanding against them and thus the Bank did not suffer any loss in any form. The Khasras and Khataunis which were submitted by the agriculturists were examined by the petitioner with due diligence and despite his ulmost careful scrutiny, he could not foresee or imagine that some of the entries in the said documents would be expunged by the Supervisor Kanoongo. The report of the Bank Manager absolving the petitioner of any lapse on his part was not taken into consideration by the enquiry officer. The dismissal order passed on the basis of the enquiry officer's report was disproportionate to the alleged technical fault on the part of the petitioner. The said order, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
(3.) Sri Anil Kumar, the Assistant General Manager (Law) at Head Office of U. P. Sahakari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd., 10-Mall Avenue, Lucknow filed his counter-affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties asserting therein that the petitioner himself, while submitting his reply to the charge-sheet, informed, the enquiry officer that he had been given enough opportunity to examine witnesses and file his reply and since he did not require any further opportunity in this regard, an appropriate decision was taken in the matter on the basis of his reply. It was on the basis of this submission of the petitioner that the enquiry officer proceeded to scrutinise the documentary evidence on record and taking into consideration the relevant aspects, he arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of serious irregularities in negotiating the loans with the four agriculturists. Now, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that he had been deprived of an opportunity of hearing. In fact he himself refused to avail any further opportunity of either adducing his own witnesses or cross-examining any other witnesses. The order of punishment had been passed by the Managing Director after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. In these circumstances, no judicial review of the enquiry report by this Court was possible. The petitioner's petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.;