M.KATJU, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated December 18, 2002 Annexure 10 to the writ petition.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) The petitioner is senior Manager in Badaun Co-operative Bank Limited, Badaun. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the petitioner along with two other officers i. e. Rameshwar Prasad and P. C. Misra by an order dated May 21, 1997 issued by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bareilly Division were entrusted with the work of inspecting Bhojipura Branch of District Co-operative Bank, Bareilly and to furnish report by June 5, 1997. True copy of the order dated May 21, 1997 is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner wrote to the concerned authority for fixing the programme for this purpose and even the Secretary/General Manager of District Co-operative Bank Limited directed Rameshwar Prasad to fix the programme vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that no programme was fixed for conducting the inspection and in the meantime Rameshwar Prasad and P. C. Misfa made a false complaint that when they requested the petitioner to accompany them for conducting the inspection on June 3, 1997 the petitioner refused to do so. Hence the Apar Secretary by letter dated August 19, 1997 directed the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why he did not comply with the order of the Deputy Registrar and did not inspect the Bhojipura Branch. True copy of the said letter is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted his reply dated September 11, 1997 vide Annexure 5 to the writ petition in which he submitted that he as"ked Rameshwar Prasad to accompany him for conducting the inspection but the latter had shown his inability by stating that he had to attend the Tahsil meeting. The petitioner again made a request to Rameshwar Prasad but he again showed his inability. Rameshwar Prasad purposely did not fix the date in spite of repeated requests. Despite these facts the respondent by a letter dated June 29, 1998 directed for issuance of charge-sheet against the petitioner vide Annexure 6 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry without giving proper and reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against the petitioner and without supplying him the relevant documents. True copy of the enquiry report dated April 25, 2001 is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has been exonerated on certain charges and found guilty on some of the charges. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued on September 4, 2001 vide Annexure 8 to the writ petition to which the petitioner gave reply dated October 2, 2001 Annexure 9 to the writ petition. The petitioner asked for personal hearing but he was not given the same and instead the impugned order dated December 18, 2002 was passed by which the petitioner had been placed at the initial pay scale and an adverse entry was given to him.;