S.N.Srivastava - (1.) -Present petition has been instituted assailing the orders dated 14.7.2003, passed by Managing Director, respondent No. 2 as also the order dated 12.6.2003, passed by Regional Manager respondent No. 3.
(2.) PETITIONER, who had entered into the service of the bank in the year 1977, was working at the relevant time as Asstt. Field Officer, in Khandauli Branch of U. P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. District Agra and while posted as such, he handled certain loan matters in the years 1991 and 1994 sought by one Dhan Singh. Subsequently, some complaint by one subscribing himself as Dhan Singh was received at the end of respondent No. 3, i.e., Regional Manager on Tahsil Diwas making imputations of financial irregularities against the petitioner and one Ashok Kumar Rana in the matter of payment of certain loan to one Dhan Singh, resident of Nagla Lodh District Agra. Upon receipt of the complaint, notices were issued to the petitioner on 19.9.2002, directing him to appear on 25.9.2002 and explain his conduct. It is alleged that the petitioner could not appear on the date fixed as the said notice was served to him belatedly on 30.9.2002. However, it is alleged that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.9.2002 the substance of which was that the allegations embodied in the complaint were all false and baseless. It would appear from the record that the order dated 12.6.2003, made by the Regional Manager respondent No. 3 vivified the matter by which the petitioner was fastened with the delinquency of indulging in certain irregularities in the transaction of repayment of the loan granted to the loaned member and he was enjoined to deposit Rs. 9,000 in the bank. Aggrieved by the order, it is alleged, the petitioner went up in appeal and the Managing Director who is arrayed as respondent No. 1, directed initiation of disciplinary enquiry appointing Regional Manager, Aligarh Branch as enquiry officer vide order dated 14.7.2003. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sri H. R. Misra for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the loans related back to the year 1991 and 1994 and therefore, the complaint made against the petitioner is too belated and cannot be entertained. He further canvassed that the complaint is actuated by improper motive and the dealing done by the petitioner was scrupulous and simple inasmuch as the amount of loan was accordingly disbursed to Dhan Singh from whom the buffalo concerned was purchased. It was further canvassed that in case the complainant was aggrieved by any of the conduct or action of the petitioner, he could have made the complaint to the higher authority and in that event, he could not have received the second instalment. He further submitted that the aforesaid Dhan Singh also transacted second loan for purchase of Buffalo and in connection with the second loan also, no grievance was articulated and the belated complaint appears to have been induced by improper motive. It has been further submitted that disciplinary enquiry having been completed, the petitioner was taxed with the liability of depositing Rs. 9,000 and disciplinary enquiry for the second time ordered by the appellate authority in appeal would amount to vexing the petitioner twice in the same matter. On the other hand, Sri H. R. Misra, tried to vindicate the impugned orders sating across the bar that the complaint made against the petitioner was substantiated in the preliminary enquiry and that the final enquiry has now been ordered in which the petitioner would have full play to have his say to resist or repudiate the allegations.
(3.) BEFORE addressing the rival contentions, it would be apt to delve into the relevant Rules framed by U. P. Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. under the Regulation 102 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. Rule 81 (1) of the U. P. Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Employees Service Rules, 1976, envisages that enquiry officer shall be appointed by the appointing authority or an officer authorised by the appointing authority qualified with the proviso that the officer at whose instance disciplinary action was commenced shall not be appointed as enquiry officer. Rule (1) (a) postulates the enquiry officer shall observe the principles of natural justice for which it shall be necessary that the employee shall be served with a charge-sheet containing specific charges, the evidence in support of each charge and he shall be required to submit explanation in respect of the charge within a reasonable time which shall be not less than 15 days. Rule 81 (1) (b) bespeaks that such employee shall also be given opportunity to produce at his own cost or to cross-examine witnesses in his defence and shall also be given opportunity of being heard in person if he so desires. Clause (c) of the aforestated Rule 81 (1) indicates that if no explanation in respect of charge-sheet is received or the explanation submit is unsatisfactory the competent authority may award him punishment considered necessary. So far as the contention that the order dated 12.6.2003, passed by the respondent No. 3 was made without affording opportunity of hearing and was made contrary to the principles of natural justice, is concerned, it has been contended by Sri H. R. Misra that the enquiry initiated on the complaint of Dhan Singh was in effect a preliminary enquiry in which the imputation made against the petitioner was held good and he was taxed with the liability of depositing Rs. 9,000. From a perusal of the order dated 12.6.2003, it transpires to me that the respondent No. 3 issued orders of recovering the amount from the petitioner on the basis of directions received from the head office by means of the letter dated 29.5.2003. It does transpire that upon the complaint the Regional Manager must have held fact-finding enquiry and in consequence the petitioner was required to appear and submit his explanation and therefore, if any enquiry has been conducted, it savours of a preliminary enquiry which according to the settled view does not necessarily bring into play the principles of natural justice in all rigidity.;