- (1.) SABHAJEET Yadav, J. By this petition, the petitioner has sought relief of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28. 9. 2006 (Annexure-9 of the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4 namely Managing Director, U. P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. , Lucknow, whereby petitioner's services have been dis pensed with after holding disciplinary inquiry against him and the payment of salary was also denied during the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid to him nothing more paid to him.
(2.) THE relief sought in the writ petition rests on the assertions that while working on the post of Assistant Field Officer in U. P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. , on account of some financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in Pilkhuwa branch, Co-operative Land Development Bank, Ghaziabad, a First Information Report was also lodged against him and he was arrested on 30. 10. 2004 but was released on bail on 2. 11. 2004. THEreafter he was placed under suspension on 3. 11. 2004 pending disciplinary inquiry against him. THEreafter, disciplinary inquiry was initiated and a charge-sheet has been served upon him on 3. 3. 2005 by the Inquiry Officer i. e. Deputy General Manager of the Head Office, Lucknow containing as many as six charges based on the prelimi nary inquiry report, conducted on 3. 11. 2004 ex-parte behind the back of the peti tioner. Acopy of charge sheet is on record asannexure-1 of the writ petition. It is stated that from bare perusal of it, it indicates that the charges levelled in the charge-sheet were sought to be proved either on the basis of inquiry report of Ajay Pal Singh, Deputy Manager, Head Office, Lucknow dated 17. 11. 2004 and/or on the basis of joint inquiry report of Additional Collector, (Land Acquisition) Irriga tion, Ghaziabad and Regional Manager of the Bank, but material on the basis of which charges levelled in the charge-sheet were shown to be proved, were not supplied to the petitioner along with the charge-sheet, therefore, the petitioner sought inspection of relevant documents vide his letter dated 9. 3. 2005, in pursu ance thereof he was permitted to inspect the record of Pilkhuwa branch on 25. 4. 2005 but he could not inspect all the documents, hence sought further time to inspect the same but on 27. 4. 2005 no further time was given to the petitioner to make inspection of the remaining records. However, somehow or other, he sub mitted his reply to the charge-sheet on the basis of available materials denying the charges levelled against him. It is further stated that after submission of reply of the charge sheet, the Inquiry Officer wIthout holding any disciplinary inquiry against the petItioner has submItted inquiry report dated 12. 8. 2005 against the petItioner. Before submis sion of said inquiry report no notice regarding the date and place of disciplinary inquiry has been issued and served upon the petItioner by the Inquiry Officer nor he has, in fact, any knowledge about the date and place of holding of inquiry nor he could participate in the said disciplinary inquiry. It appears that the Inquiry Officer has prepared the inquiry report against the petItioner and straightway sub mItted the same on 12. 8. 2005 to Disciplinary AuthorIty in fact wIthout holding any disciplinary inquiry, who acting upon the aforesaid inquiry report issued and served a show cause notice upon the petItioner vide order dated 9. 3. 2006 contained in Annexure-6 of the wrIt petItion proposing the punishment of dismissal of the peti tioner from service. On receipt of show cause notice the petItioner has submItted a comprehensive reply on 25. 4. 2006 pointing out glaring illegalIties in holding departmental inquiry against him. Ultimately, the Managing Director, vide order dated 28. 9. 2006 has dismissed the petItioner from service by taking prior appro va I/con sent from U. P. Cooperative InstItutional Service Board as contained in Annexure-9 of the wrIt petItion. Feeling aggrieved against which the petItioner has filed abovenoted wrIt petItion. The submission of Sri K. M. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner in nutshell is that after submission of reply of charge-sheet since no notice regard ing the date and place of inquiry has been communicated to the petitioner and served upon him, therefore, the petitioner could not participate in the said inquiry. The inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 12. 8. 2005 was prepared only on the basis of preliminary inquiry report as revealed from it which was never supplied to the petitioner either along with charge-sheet shown as documents in support of charges or thereafter nor it was proved before Inquiry Officer while holding the said disciplinary inquiry in accordance with the provisions of law or principles of natural justice, as such the said inquiry report can be said to be no inquiry report in the eye of law and could not have been acted upon by the Disci plinary Authority. Secondly learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submit ted that since the aforesaid preliminary inquiry report has never been proved in accordance with the provisions of law before Inquiry Officer, therefore, the same could not be treated to be admissible piece of evidence to be relied upon against the petitioner to prove the charges levelled against him and such preliminary inquiry report could not be made basis in support of the charges levelled in the charge-sheet and since except the aforesaid preliminary inquiry report no other material has been shown in support of the charges contained in the charge-sheet, therefore, the petitioner could not be connected with the aforesaid charges of misconduct levelled against him, as it would be a case of no evidence to establish the delinquency of petitioner on the basis of admissible evidence on record, therefore, impugned order based on such inquiry report cannot be sus tained. In support of his aforesaid submission learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions rendered in Shiv Shanker Saxena v. State of U. P. end others, 2006 (3) ADJ 572:2006 (2) ESC 1294; Gopal Chandra Sinha v. State of U. P and others, 2005 (4) ESC 2899; Rajendra Prasad Tripathiv. State of U. P and others, 2004 (4)AWC 3536 and Bhupendra Kumar Misra v. M. D. , U. P. F. C. and others, 2006 (1) ADJ 723.
(3.) CONTRARY to it, Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that before passing the impugned order full opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. In pursuance of earlier direction of this Court Sri Nripendra Mishra has also produced the record before this Court at the time of hearing. On the basis of record produced before the Court Sri Nripendra Mishra has made statement that the petitioner was given opportunity of personal hearing before the Managing Director of the Bank, who was disciplinary authority of the petitionerand he has appeared before the Managing Director on 24. 6. 2006 before impugned order was passed against him but except to written reply earlier sub mitted by him, he could not adduce any defence evidence in support of his case. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard on that count at this stage before this Court and he cannot blame the Disciplinary Authority on alleged fault in disciplin ary proceedings held against him. Heard Sri K. M. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitionerand learned Stand ing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Nripendra Misra for Land Development Bank, Ghaziabad.;