- (1.) THE instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned order of dismissal dated september 6, 1995 passed by the Managing director. U. P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. , lucknow (to be hereinafter referred as the bank) as well as the appellate Order dated february 11, 1997.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are summarised as under: the petitioner who was appointed on the post of Kisan Sewak was later on designated as field Officer. While posted in the Milik Branch (District Rampur) of the Bank, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated March 20, 1990 containing as much as six charges relating to financial irregularity and abuse of power. In response to the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply on June 27, 1990. Thereafter letter dated February 2, 1994 was served upon the petitioner informing him that if he wants to make any further representation, he may do so, so that the enquiry may be concluded at an early date. In response to the letter dated february 2, 1994 the petitioner submitted his representation dated February 14, 1994 stating therein that on the basis of the material on record, further action may be taken by the enquiry Officer. It appears that after receipt of the petitioner's reply dated February 14, 1994, the Enquiry Officer, instead of recording oral evidence and permitting the petitioner to, adduce evidence in defence, served a notice dated June 8, 1994 calling upon the petitioner to appear for personal hearing, in pursuance whereof the petitioner was heard on June 18, 1994. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 24 to the writ petition. After submission of the enquiry report, a show cause notice dated January 28, 1995 was served upon the petitioner.
(3.) ACCORDING to Sri Ramesh Kumar srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, after receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his representation stating therein that the enquiry proceedings have been held without providing necessary opportunity and supplying all the necessary documents. However, Sri N. N. Jaiswal, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has rebutted this submission.;