- (1.) Heard Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Senior Clerk against the substantive vacancy by the Board of Director of District Co-operative Bank Limited, Mainpuri and joined the service on 26.10.1971. By the order dated 6.9.1979, Secretary/General Manager of the Bank has directed the petitioner to officiate as Branch Manager until further order at Branch Jagir. By the order dated 18.1.1980, the Chairman of the Bank has temporarily promoted the petitioner on the post of Branch Manager in the pay-scale of Rs.200-10-300 E.V. 20-500. By the impugned order dated 7.12.1998, the promotion order dated 18.1.1980 has been cancelled being illegal. It has been cancelled mainly on the ground that under Regulation 5 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, the entire appointment whether the direct recruitment or by promotion was governed by the Board. It further provides that where the promotion is being made by the Committee of Management from the junior employees without the approval of the Board, the same shall become ineffective after the expiry of six months. The Chairman of the Bank has appointed the petitioner as the Branch Manager vide order dated 18.1.1980 contrary to the Regulation 5 (2) and he has been allowed to continue even after expiry of six months for which he has no authority to do so. In seniority list dated 27.12.1982, the petitioner has been placed at serial no. 17, has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 1052 of 1983, which has been dismissed on 25.1.1983. The promotion of the petitioner has been cancelled in view of the direction given by the U.P. Sahkari Sansthagat Seva Mandal Lucknow vide order dated 9.11.1998. In pursuance of the impugned order dated 7.12.1998, by the order dated 8.12.1998 the petitioner has been directed to give the charge of the Branch Manager.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity before passing the impugned order. He referred the inquiry report annexed with the rejoinder affidavit dated 26.7.2004 wherein the cancellation of the petitioner's promotion after working on the promoted post of Branch Manager for 19 years was held to be unjustified. He submitted that the petitioner has worked efficiently on the post of Branch Manager and his work has always been appreciated. He worked for more than 18 years and the cancellation of his promotion was wholly unjustified.;