SUNEET KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a clerk -cum -cashier in District Cooperative Bank Ltd Fatehpur and was presently holding the post of in charge Bank Manager at Sultanpur Ghos of the Bank. The service conditions of the petitioner is governed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975. The petitioner was placed under suspension along with clerk -cum -cashier Dhirendra Singh on 17.3.2012 for financial irregularities and embezzlement. The petitioner was issued a charge -sheet on 14.5.2012 levelling 14 charges most of which relate to financial irregularities causing loss of Rs. 13,00,000/ - to the Bank. Petitioner submitted reply on 14.6.2012, Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry, in which the petitioner participated, submitted enquiry report on 12.7.2012. Petitioner was found to be negligent while functioning as a Branch Manager, as petitioner had signed blank cheques thus, enabling the then cashier Dhirendra Singh to withdraw the money, causing loss to the bank. Hence, the petitioner was grossly negligent in his conduct, thus, petitioner was found unsuitable for the job. A show cause notice was issued on 24.7.2012 along with the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.8.2012, and appeared for personal hearing on 14.8.2012.
(2.) THE respondent no. 4, Secretary/General Manager, District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Fatehpur vide order dated 18.8.2012 decide to terminate the service of the petitioner in accordance with the regulations and forwarded the proposal to the respondent no. 2, U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board Lucknow. The respondent no. 2 accorded approval by letter dated 8.1.2013 approving the termination of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner failed to perform his duties and responsibility in a manner befitting to the post.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was negligent in his duties as he had signed blank cheques thus, permitting the cashier Dhirendra Singh to withdraw several lacs of rupees, hence, causing loss to the bank is unsustainable as Dhirendra Singh had appeared and accepted his guilt and also deposited the embezzled amount thus, on admission by Dhirendra Singh of his guilt would absolve the petitioner of the charges, hence the quantum of punishment is disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that due to the negligent conduct of the petitioner, enabled the cashier to commit the fraud resulting in loss to the bank for Rs. 13 lacs, had the petitioner been vigilant in his duties and had not signed blank cheques, the bank would not have lost such huge amount of money, thus, the conduct of the petitioner being grossly negligent made the petitioner unsuitable for the job, the employer had lost confidence upon the petitioner as a Manager of the Bank.;