Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vinod Sinha and Sri Mahesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent -Bank. A major penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner Harihar Nath Shukla, son of Mahabir Shukla working as Field Officer in U.P. Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") vide order dated 26.4.1988, passed by Managing Director of the Bank, which has given a cause of action to the petitioner to approach this Court assailing the aforesaid order on the ground that without conducting any oral enquiry whatsoever, the impugned order of major penalty has been passed and therefore it is in violation of principles of natural justice as also procedure prescribed in Regulation 85 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "1975 Regulations").
(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Branch Accountant, subsequently promoted as Branch Accountant in 1969 and then as Field Officer on 22.2.1978. He was placed under suspension on 26.8.1983 which followed a charge sheet dated 20.9.1984 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). Five charges were levelled against the petitioner. One R.K. Agarwal, General Manager was appointed Enquiry Officer who had issued the aforesaid charge sheet. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) denying all the charges levelled against him. No oral enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Regulation 85 was held by the enquiry officer and he straightaway submitted inquiry report dated 22.11.1985. It appears that the said enquiry report was submitted by one Gopal Gupta, Regional Manager, Jhansi and it was addressed to Sri R.K. Agarwal, General Manager, Headquarter, Lucknow. In the said report all the five charges were held proved. Pursuant thereto a show cause notice dated 24/27.6.1986 was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner by letter dated 11.7.1986 required the Managing Director to make available copies of reports which were relied on in the enquiry report to enable him to submit an effective reply. The said request was declined by letter dated 4.10.1986 issued by General Manager (Administration). The petitioner while reiterating the necessity of requisite documents, submitted representation/reply dated 24.10.1986 to the show cause notice. Another reply was submitted by him on 1.12.1986. The petitioner, however, mentioned that he is still awaiting the reports and documents relied by enquiry officer, copies whereof were not given to him and after receiving the same would submit further reply. The respondent No. 1 thereafter passed the impugned order of punishment of removal.
(3.) SRI Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is vitiated and nullity in law for the reasons that before imposing penalty of removal, enquiry officer did not conduct any oral enquiry whatsoever and even the documents relied by enquiry officer in his report were not submitted or furnished to the petitioner despite repeated requests and it is another reason for vitiating the entire proceedings.;