S.N.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Impugned here are the orders dated 3.11.1998 passed by Managing Director U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. whereby the petitioner was awarded censure entry for not discharging his duties with diligence and further forfeiting the salary for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance and 23.4.1999 passed by appellate authority whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
(2.) From a perusal of the record it would transpire that the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of enquiry by means of order dated 4.10.1997 which was passed in exercise of power under Regulation 85 (vii) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Regulations, 1975 on the charges that the matter of missing of receipt No. 18 was not reported to the superior authorities and further that the petitioner made use of the cash receipt book quite irregularly to the detriment of the interest of the Bank. Subsequently, charge-sheet was drawn 'vide charge-sheet dated 27.1.1998 and enquiry was embarked upon. In the final analysis, it was found that it was not a case involving major penalty and consequently, while taking decision not to pursue enquiry, penally of censure entry was inflicted on the petitioner. It would further appear from the record that the petitioner was denied salary for the period of suspension although he was treated on duty for the aforesaid period vide order dated 3.11.1993. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned orders instituted the present petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner began submission canvassing that charges contained in the charge-sheet have not been brought home against the petitioner and further that disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority scantly dealt with the charge in the impugned orders and the orders impugned have been passed without assigning any reasons and no finding has been recorded about guilt of the petitioner. It is further canvassed that the order is without application of mind to the reply submitted to the charge-sheet and other materials on record and therefore the same is unsustainable in law. Lastly, it has been canvassed that under the provisions of Regulation 85 (vii) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, it is envisaged that the authority could place a person under suspension only when it is a case of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank and this admittedly being not the case the order of suspension was vitiated and the authorities erred in law in refusing to pay salary for the period of suspension. In the counter-affidavit filed by opposite parties, the reply to averments is confined to the statement that the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing and hence the order is liable to be maintained.;