- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Petitioner, when he was working as District Manager, U. P. Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), Muzaffarnagar, was issued a notice dated 5-9-1988 by the Managing Director of the Bank calling upon him to show cause as to why a sum of Rs. 13,897. 80 P. , which has been paid as salary to a daily wager, appointed at the office at Muzaffarnagar, be not recovered from him. In response to the said notice petitioner submitted his reply. Not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the Managing Director passed an order dated 5-12-1988, directing for censor entry in the petitioner's character roll and also for recovery of Rs. 13897. 80 P. from him. Petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which has also been dismissed. Being aggrieved he has filed this writ petition.
(2.) WE have heard the learned Coun sel for the parties. Petitioner was charged for having appointed Sri Rajendra Prasad Dangwal as a daily wager at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day in the Bank at Muzaffarnagar without prior approval of the competent authority. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the documents annexed there to, it is clear that a direction has been issued by letter dated 27-11-1982 by the Managing Director or of the Bank authorising the District and Regional Of fices to appoint one daily wager in their offices at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day. Sri Rajendra Prasad Dangwal was accordingly appointed in anticipation of the approval of the Regional Manager, who is the ap pointing authority, according to the respondents also. The Regional Manager granted his approval to the appointment of Sri Dangwal. These facts are not dis puted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed before this Court the or ders passed by the Regional Manager ex tending the appointment of Sri Rajendra Prasad Dangwal as daily wager from time to time till 1987. The appointment of Sri Dangwal having been made with the ap proval of the Regional Manager, no excep tion can be taken to such an appointment. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Order dated 5-12-1988 and also the order dated 6- 7-1980 as com municated by tetter dated 4-8-1989 are quashed. As the petitioner has already retired, the respondents are directed to pay him if not already paid, all the retiral benefits admissible under law forthwith. Petition allowed. .;