Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 3.1.2011 and 7.1.2011 passed by opposite party No. 2, whereby opposite party No. 2 has served a notice of initiation of re-enquiry after the retirement of the petitioner and adjusted an amount of alleged overdrafts given to the societies for the payment of salaries of their employees from the retiral benefits of the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts which emerged from the pleadings of the writ petition are that the petitioner had joined the Hardoi District Corporation Bank in the year 1972 as Clerk cum Typist and on account of his excellent work and conduct he was promoted as Junior Branch Manager. THE petitioner while posted as Junior Branch Manager (Class-III employee) in Gopamau Tadiyawa and Ahrauri Branch of the Bank, placed under suspension vide order dated 3.6.2000 in contemplation of departmental enquiry on the charges of giving overdrafts to the Societies for the payment of salaries of their employees. THE enquiry officer appointed by the opposite parties was objected by the petitioner, but the request of change of enquiry officer was neither rejected nor accepted. THE documents demanded by the petitioner was also not provided and ultimately petitioner was compelled to submit his reply without perusal of the relevant documents. After submission of the reply to the charge- sheet, without conducting any enquiry and affording opportunity to defend by the enquiry officer, an enquiry report was submitted on 20.11.2000, holding the charges proved against the petitioner, in respect of irregular overdrafts of Rs. 782050.06. A show-caUse notice was issued on 2.1.2001 to the petitioner requiring him to explain as to why the recovery of the aforesaid amount be not made from him. THE petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show-cause notice on 16.1.2001, but no decision was taken thereon by the opposite parties for several months. Another show-cause notice dated 16.5.2001 was issued to the petitioner wherein he was required to explain why his services may not be dismissed from the bank. THE petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice explaining therein that he had not acted irregularly while permitting the overdrafts to the societies as the same was permitted under the circular dated 11.5.1987 of the Registrar. THE disciplinary authority without considering the fact that neither the copies of the relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner nor any date, time and place was fixed by the enquiry officer for holding the oral enquiry, passed the order dated 11.4.2002 thereby dismissing the petitioner from service of the Bank. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order before this Court by means of writ petition No. 2931(S/S) of 2002. This Court after examining the original record of the disciplinary proceedings as well as appreciating the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, came to the conclusion that enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. The Court quashed the order of dismissal dated 11.4.2002 and opposite parties were given liberty to conduct enquiry afresh from the point where time, date and place was to be fixed for the enquiry and pass a fresh orders accordingly, if they so choose. The Court after appreciating the fact that the petitioner is going to retire very soon, directed opposite parties to complete the enquiry as quickly as possible, say within a maximum period of three months from the date a certified copy of order is placed before them. The petitioner served the certified copy of order before opposite party No. 2 alongwith an application for permitting him to resume his duties on 2.11.2010 and the same was duly received in the office of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 in pursuance to the application/letter of the petitioner dated 2.11.2010, informed the petitioner vide letter dated 3.11.2010 that Hon'ble High Court by means of judgment and order dated 28.10.2010 only quashed the dismissal order, but there is no direction for allowing the joining of the petitioner as such his joining in the bank was baseless and was unacceptable. The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in its contempt jurisdiction by means of contempt petition No. 2674 (C ) of 2010 against the non-compliance of the order dated 28.10.2010, in which notices were issued to the opposite parties to appear personally on 29.11.2010. The opposite parties appeared before this Court and informed that they had filed Special Appeal No. 818 of 2010 against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. The Special Appeal was dismissed by means of order dated 1.12.2010. After dismissal of the Special Appeal, the opposite parties in contempt proceedings gave an undertaking that the judgment of this Court would be complied with without any loss of time. In the meantime, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2010. The opposite party No. 2 issued an order dated 3.1.2011, which shows the Managing Committee of the Bank in its meeting dated 31.12.2010 took a decision that in pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court the enquiry be initiated and Sri Suresh Chandra Saxena, Junior Branch Manager be appointed as enquiry officer.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 3.1.2011, addressed the petitioner as dismissed Junior Branch Manager, whereas the dismissal order had already been quashed by this Court. Another order was passed on 7.1.2011 thereby sanctioning retiral benefits as well as the arrears of pay for the period the petitioner remained out of service due to dismissal order and in the said order a sum of Rs. 782050.06 has been shown to be adjusted towards the alleged irregular overdraft permitted by the petitioner to the Societies for payment of salaries to their employees. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the one hand the opposite parties have initiated the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner and on the other hand the aforesaid sum has been adjusted without arriving to the conclusion regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay the same to the Bank and as such the impugned order dated 7.1.2011 is illegal and arbitrary to the extent that a sum of Rs. 782050.06 has been adjusted against the retiral dues and arrears of the petitioner.;