V.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) The question for consideration in this petition is whether the order dismissing the petitioner, aManager of a Cooperative Bank was in accordance with law.
(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Typist-cum-Clerk in the bank on 1.10.1953 and was promoted as Branch Manager on 1.1.1972. He was suspended on 14.1.1986. On 27.12.1986 an enquiry officer was appointed who issued a charge-sheet to him on 25.2.1987. He was dismissed on 8.5.1989. He claimed that the copies of documents which were to be relied against him were not provided along with the charge-sheet, nor papers relating to loan given to Smt. Kailashi Devi and the vouchers of Sri A. K. Bajpayee were provided to him. He further claimed that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the Bank Manager and the witnesses, therefore, he could not defend himself and the enquiry proceedings were contrary to principles of natural Justice. On 10.8.1988, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner which was replied by him on 17.8.1988. On 23.8.1988/9.9.1988. the bank sought concurrence from the U. P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board (in brief Board) for dismissing the petitioner from service. The Board by its letter dated 27.12.1988 refused to grant concurrence as Regulations 85 (i) to 85 (iv) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (in brief Regulations) had not been complied. It was further directed that a proper recommendation be sent by the respondents. On 2.2.1989, the bank reiterated that earlier recommendation for dismissal of petitioner made on 23.8.1988/ 9.9.1988 was in accordance with law. And in case no final decision is taken, then burden of paying heavy salary to the petitioner will come on the bank. The Board ultimately by it s letter dated 24.4.1989 granted concurrence to the dismissal of the petitioner from service, as provided by Regulation 87, and an order was passed on 8.5.1988 by respondent No. 3, dismissing the petitioner from service. A copy of the order has been filed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.
(3.) Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Board refused to grant concurrence to the recommendation sent by the respondents to dismiss the petitioner from service on the ground that Regulations 85 (i) and 85 (iv) had not been complied with by the respondents. Therefore, it was necessary for the bank to follow the procedure prescribed under Regulation 85 and make a fresh recommendation to the Board. He urged that it was not open to the bank to reiterate its earlier recommendation dated 23.8.1988/ 9.9.1988 without complying with the Regulation 85 as pointed out by the Board in it s letter dated 27.12.1988. And the Board acted illegally in granting concurrence on 24.7.1989 under pressure of financial liability. It amounted to review of the earlier order dated 27.12.1988 but since no power of review has been conferred, under the regulations, upon the Board, the concurrence granted by the Board was illegal and the order dismissing the petitioner was liable to be set aside. Further, the learned counsel urged that the order suffered from manifest error of law as it was passed without following the principles of natural justice as provided by the regulations.;