D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner, a Junior Branch Manager posted at Disaratganj Branch of Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Bareilly during the period of 1983-84, having been superseded by an order dated 14-5-1984, was subjected to a disciplinary proceedings with the service of a charge-sheet dated 11-12-1984 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The petitioner alleged that his requests for inspection by his letter dated 18-12-1984 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), was declined by the enquiry officer. While declining such permission, the enquiry officer by a letter dated 9-1-1985 asked the petitioner to submit his reply within one week. By his letter dated 17-1-1985, the petitioner once again asked for inspection of the record before submitting his reply. Ultimately on 15-2-1985 the petitioner was compelled ro submit his reply without being afforded opportunity of inspection. The petitioner by his letter dated 19-2-1985 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) asked for permission to adduce evidence. Despite such request no opportunity either to adduce or to cross examine the witnesses of the prosecution was afforded. Neither any enquiry nor any hearing took place before the enquiry officer. By a letter dated 20-5-1985, an enquiry report dated 28-4-1985 was served upon the petitioner asking him to show cause why punishment of dismissal should net be imposed upon him. On the basis of the said report, the petitioner showed cause by means of his reply dated 23-6-1985 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). By a letter dated 24-6-1986 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) the petitioner pointed out that the enquiry officer did not hold any enquiry and that he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses nor he was allowed to adduce any evidence in support of his defence. By a letter dated 27-1-1986 the Bank sought for approval of the proposed punishment of dismissal from the U. P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board (hereinafter called as the 'Board') By a letter dated 30-3-1987 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), the Board had given its concurrence to the proposed punishment. The petitioner has challenged this order dated 30-3-1987 passed by the Board being Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
(2.) The writ petition is opposed by respondents. It is alleged en behalf of respondents that the petitioner was asked to show cause through Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. The charge-sheet was submitted after the preliminary enquiry giving details of each charges. In the charge-sheet itself it was pointed out that if the petitioner wants personal hearing and intends to adduce any evidence in his defence or if he wants to cross-examine any witness in that event he should indicate the names and address of such witnesses and his desire to be heard in the reply itself, But the petitioner did not indicate anything in his reply. On the other hand, the reply was evasive. In the reply almost all the charges were admitted. The alleged letter dated 19-2-1985, contained as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, was never received by the Bank or by the Enquiry Officer and it is not available on their records. The enquiry proceeding was based on records and no oral evidence was adduced or relied upon by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, there was no question of cross examining any witness. Since the petitioner did net propose to adduce any evidence nor he had asked for persona) hearing, therefore, it was not necessary to give any personal hearing. The enquiry officer proceeded on the basis of record. Even on the second show cause issued, proposing the punishment, the petitioner did not indicate in the reply thereto that personal hearing was denied or that he was net permitted to adduce any evidence or examine any witness in his defence. Nowhere in reply he had wispered about the case now sought to be made out. He has also not pointed out in any of the two replies that he was denied inspection of documents On the other hand in the second show cause, he had admitted that at the time of inspection of these documents, he had found something which statement is apparent from his reply to the second show cause The Beard had given concurrence to the proposal rightly. The petitioner having not challenged the order of termination passed by the Bank pursuant to the concurrence given by the Board, the writ petition is not maintainable.
(3.) Mr. A. Kumar, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition assailed the order dated 30-3-1987, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, on several grounds. First, he contends that the enquiry is vitiated on the principle of audi alteram partem. Inasmuch as at no stage of proceeding, the petitioner was afforded any opportunity of hearing and that no enquiry at all has been held or had taken place before the enquiry officer and that inspection of the documents as requested by the petitioner were declined. Secondly, he contends that before granting concurrence it is incumbent upon the Board to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer in view of the fact that the Board while giving concurrence in exercision quasi judicial authorities under Regulation 87 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employed Service Regulations 1975, hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation in which it is so implicit inasmuch as such concurrence has civil con' sequence. Whenever civil consequence is inflicted on account of certain decisions taken in exercise of quasi judicial function giving of an opportunity to the person visited with such civil consequence is implicit. He elaborated his submission that similar provisions as existing in Section 16 (g) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act which requires prior approval and Section 33 and Section 22-A of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 which postulate giving of hearing to the delinquent. He relied on certain decisions in support of his contention which I shall be referring to shortly hereinafter. His last contention was that in similar circumstances, one Virendra Kumar was awarded lesser punishment though he was found guilty of the same charges Therefore the Bank and the Board had discriminated as between the petitioner and the said Virendra Kumar and as such the order of discharge passed against the petitioner is arbitrary.;