Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) The petitioner was Secretary of the Urban Co-operative Bank, Saharanpur. By the impugned order dated 9.3.2004 he has been placed under suspension. ? Challenging the said order'this writ petition has been filed. Affidavits have been exchanged and with consent of learneed Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(2.) Brief facts of this case are that on certain charges including some which were of serious financial irregularities, proceeding under Section 68 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), had been initiated against the petitioner. On some such charges having been proved, by order dated 24.5.2001 a punishment was imposed on the petitioner Although the said order dated 24.5.2001 has not been annexed with the writ petition nor the punishment imposed has been described but on being questioned, Sri H.R. Mishra, learneed Counsel for the petitioner, stated that by the said order recovery of over 9 lakhs of rupees had been directed from the petitioner. However, in appeal filed by the petitioner, by order dated 23.9.2003, certain interim protection has been granted, details of which have also not been given in the writ petition.
(3.) Learneed Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had thereafter on 24.7.2001, been issued another notice initiating proceedings under Section 38(2) of the Act. It has thus been urged that the suspension order dated 9.3.2004 could not have been passed by the Administrator of the Bank as the charges levelled in the said suspension order are more or less the same which are there in the proceedings under Sections 38 and Section 68 of the Act.;