- (1.) HEARD Sri Naveen Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bal Ram Yadav for the respondents. The record has been produced by the Bank.
(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order of punishment dated 31.7.2006 by means of which he has been dismissed from service and has been made liable for recovery of amount of Rs. 11,22,265.81 which is to be recovered by initiating proceedings under Section 68 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The petitioner, was initially appointed as Field Officer in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. (herein after referred to as the Bank), and was later promoted to the post of Branch Manager in the year 1997. While working as Branch Manager there were certain complaints against him which were enquired into. The petitioner was required to submit his explanation which he submitted . However, in contemplation of an enquiry the petitioner was suspended on 1.10.2003. Regional Manager, Azam Garh was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On 2.12.2003 the Enquiry Officer issued the charge-sheet, levelling certain charges against the petitioner. The petitioner in response to the charge-sheet by the application dated 16.12.2003 requested the Enquiry Officer to provide certain copies of the documents relating to the Branch Rudrapur and also requested one month's time for submitting his reply. The Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 26.12.2003, directed the petitioner to go to Branch Rudrapur on his own costs and also to obtain the Photostat of the required documents on his own costs and to submit his reply by 15.1.2004. In reference to the aforesaid letter dated 26.12.2003, the petitioner again requested the Enquiry Officer vide his application dated 13.1.2004 to provide the relevant documents in order to submit his reply and also requested two months' time for submitting his reply. However, desired documents were not provided to the petitioner. The petitioner again sent an application dated 16.3.2004 for extension of time. Later, the Enquiry Officer by letter dated 8.4.2004 required the petitioner to submit his reply by 20.4.2004. However, desired documents could not be provided to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 25.8.2004, denying the charges levelled against him. After submission of the aforesaid reply the Enquiry Officer served a supplementary charge-sheet through his letter dated 1.3.2005. On 15.3.2005 the petitioner submitted an application requesting the Enquiry Officer to provide certain documents in order to submit a reply but the request was ignored. The petitioner however submitted his reply dated 25.4.2005 against the supplementary charge-sheet.
(3.) THE petitioner though submitted his reply against the charge-sheet dated 2.12.2003 and supplementary charge-sheet dated 1.3.2005, but the Enquiry Officer neither called the petitioner to attend any enquiry nor intimated the date time and place of any enquiry. To say in other words, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry reports dated 2.12.2004 and 13.5.2005 in respect of charge-sheet dated 2.12.2003 and 1.3.2005 respectively without holding any oral enquiry, examination of witnesses and also without getting the reports and other documentary evidence proved by oral testimony of the departmental officer and without affording opportunity to the petitioner to lay his defence. THEreafter show cause notice dated 1.2.2006 was issued proposing the punishment of dismissal from service, and recovery of Rs. 11,22,265.81. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner appeared before the Managing Director. He made a representation dated 18.2.2006 in this respect. During the course of arguments the question arose as to whether the Enquiry Officer has afforded any opportunity to the petitioner in the enquiry or he has submitted his reports only on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner. Since counsel for the parties were not clear, therefore, this Court required the presence of the concerned Bank Officer with relevant record of the enquiry. Record was produced and Shri Balram Yadav appearing for the respondent stated that the Enquiry Officer did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and did submit his aforesaid reports merely on the reply submitted by the petitioner. He however, submitted that at the stage of issuance of show cause notice by the Managing Director, the petitioner was issued a letter by the Managing Director, giving opportunity to adduce evidence whatsoever he wanted in support of his defence.;