Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Uma Kant appearing for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.
(2.) Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.4.1988 by which after a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service by the Additional Registrar (Administration). Co-operative Societies, U. P., Lucknow ; and has further prayed for a direction not to give effect to the order of dismissal till the enquiry against the Secretary and Branch Manager of the Co-operative Bank is concluded,
(3.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are, that petitioner was appointed as A.D.O. Co-operative Development Block-Rasra, When he was posted at Mirpur, district Mirzapur, a disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge-sheet dated 23.6.1986 was served upon him. He was charge-sheeted for committing financial irregularities. The District Co-operative Bank had sanctioned a credit limit of Rs. 25,000 for Public Distribution System and for consumption. The petitioner was charged for giving fresh credits before taking care to deposit previous outstanding loans. The second, third and fourth charges were also similar with regard to different centres. Charge No. 6 was with regard to failure of verification of the balance accounts and stock, with the societies, and Charge No. 8 related to failure of the petitioner to secure the cash deposits of Rs. 10,000 as security Fiedility Insurance of Rs. 10,000 and securing guarantees of Rs. 5,000 each of two different persons on notional Stamp Papers of Rs. 5 each. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 13.4.1987. He denied the charges. It was stated by him that the Secretary of the society was responsible for giving cheques and for deposit of previous advances. The Secretary continued to give advance in conspiracy with the salesman, which resulted into embezzlement for which the Secretary of the Society and the Branch Manager of Muirpur are responsible. In respect of Charge Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, he raised a similar defence and shifted the responsibility on the Secretary of the Society and the Branch Manager of the Centre, who kept him in dark about previous advance. With regard to Charge No. 7 it was stated that out of 8 societies, petitioner had inspected four societies as given in his reply. It was stated in the reply that the petitioner was not responsible for taking securities and guarantees.;