- (1.) These three writ petitions are directed against the orders of dismissal passed against them by the Managing Director of the U. P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank.) They were all employees of the Bank and disciplinary proceedings were taken against them and thereafter the impugned orders were passed against them. The orders were passed with the prior concurrence of the U. P. Co-operative Institutional Services Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The said concurrence was obtained under Rule 89 of the U. P. Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Employees Service Rules framed by the Bank.
(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that no proper inquiry was held; that concurrence of the Board was obtained without considering the replies submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice; and, that the final orders were also passed without considering the said replies. It has further been asserted that the Bank is an agency or instrumentality of the State and as such it is an 'authority' within the meaning of Articles 12 and 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) The Bank has contested the petitions and has denied that it is an agency or instrumentality of the State. It has further asserted that proper inquiry was held in each case and that the show cause notice against the proposed penalty was not required under the rules and that the original notice given to the respective petitioners along with the charge sheets was enough. Accordingly, any reply submitted by the petitioners to the second show cause notice need not have been considered as the notice itself was redundant. It has further been contended that no writ petition lies in the matter as the Bank is not an 'authority'.;