R.B.MISRA J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has sought a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6 -5 -1998 (Annexure -II) and has further prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in service and pay him all back wages and emoluments.
(2.) HEARD Sri S.K. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee as a messenger in the Hindon Gramin Bank on the oral direction of the Manager. He was making entries in the pass books, ledgers vouchers etc. The petitioner was suspended by respondent (Chairman/Anushashnik Adhikari). Charge -sheet was issued on 9 -9 -1996 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) by respondent No. 3 i.e. the Branch Manager. The petitioner was suspended for his involvement in misappropriation of bank money and for having worked beyond his jurisdiction and for dereliction of his duties. Sri Anil Gautam an officer of the rank of Branch Manager was appointed as enquiry officer and Sudhir Sharma was appointed as presenting officer. The presenting officer Sri Sudhir Kumar in his report dated 27 -8 -1997 (Annexure -7) has presented before the enquiry officer in respect of the enquiry as summarised the charges, the documents, statements of the witnesses, date of witnesses, date of cross -examination and re -examination and has persuaded that the petitioner has mishandled and misappropriated the money of the bank for his selfishness act and his conduct was dubious and contrary to law and unauthorised which degraded the interest of the bank and his integrity and honesty was doubtful. Therefore, the petitioner was penalised for the action in reference to the Regulations 17 and 19 of Hindon Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1988. The enquiry officer concluded the same and submitted report on 18 -12 -1997 (Annexure -9) on the basis of documentary evidence, statements and admissions of the petitioner as well as statements of the witnesses and counter version of the petitioner and the enquiry officer has found that all the five charges have been proved against the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without initiating any regular departmental proceeding against the petitioner and without changing the enquiry officer the enquiry has been concluded without furnishing any document in support of the charges levelled against him.;