NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.10,1999 (as contained in Annexure -19 to the writ application) passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and for a further writ/order directing the concerned respondents to reinstate the petitioner and to pay his salary for the period from 28.11.1994 to 15.7.1998 deducting the amount of subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner and further salary of the petitioner from 15.7.1998 to 15.10.1999, i.e., between the two dismissal orders during the period the petitioner had worked.
(2.) THE petitioner had been working as an Assistant Accountant in the Ranchi -Khunti Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. (respondent No. 1). In the year 1994, a first information report was lodged by the respondent No. 2, alleging misappropriation of huge amount by the petitioner. The petitioner was put under suspension by an order dated 28.1.1.1994. A show cause notice dated 9.12.1996 followed. The petitioner was asked to explain about the same. The petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 23.12.1996. Respondent No. 2, by his order dated 19.3.1997, directed the petitioner to join his duty. Petitioner, accordingly, gave his joining on 21.3.1997. He was not allowed to work. Again a show cause notice dated 14.5.1998 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 asking him as to why he should not be dismissed according to the report of the Joint Registrar dated 22.11.1997. By order dated 15.7.1998, passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner -cum -Administrator, Ranchi -Khunti Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. the petitioner was dismissed from his service. It is relevant to mention herein that a departmental inquiry was held by the Joint Registrar and in the said inquiry the petitioner was not found guilty of any misappropriation, vide enquiry report dated 11.7.1998 (Annexure -13). The petitioner, thus, challenged the said order of dismissal dated 15.7.1998 in writ application, CWJC No. 2920 of 1997 (R). By order dated 10.3.1999, the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench (as then was) quashed the said order of dismissal. It was also observed therein that the disciplinary authority would proceed in accordance with law with respect to back wages and any other order. The respondents assailed the said order in L.P.A. No. 103 of 1999 (R), but, by order dated 6.8.1999, the same was dismissed. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted his joining, which was not accepted. However, after several representations to the authorities, he was ultimately allowed to join on 8.5.1999. On 16.6.1999, the petitioner received yet another show cause notice by letter No. 212 dated 15.6.1999 issued by the Administrator, Ranch -Khunti Central Cooperative Bank (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the bank '). In the said show cause notice, the petitioner was asked to explain as to why his service should not be terminated on account of the charges by differing with the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 26.9.1999, stating inter alia, that in no way he can be held responsible for any defaulcation as he has not been found guilty in the enquiry. On 23.10.1999, the petitioner received the impugned order of dismissal from service by letter No. 563, dated 15.10.1999 (Annexure -19 to the writ application). The said punishment order has been challenged in this writ application. According to the petitioner, it was he who had informed the concerned authority about the misappropriation of the fund of the bank by one Lal Ravindra Nath Sahadeo, the then Development Officer, which was also found in Audit Report of the year 1993 -94, 1994 -95. But in the first information report lodged by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was made an accused on the allegation that he had misappropriated the huge amount. The petitioner was also proceeded against departmentally, but was not found guilty of the charges leveled against him by the Enquiry Officer. Even then, the Enquiry Officer recommended for withholding of two future annual increments of the petitioner. Ignoring the finding of the Enquiry Officer the petitioner was arbitrarily awarded punishment of dismissal. That dismissal order was quashed in CWJC No. 2920 of 1997 (R) and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law for payment of back wages etc. The petitioner 'sgrievance is that the respondents, out of mala fide, has again passed the order of dismissal without any fresh inquiry or without any fresh material on record. According to the petitioner he has been made victim of mala fide and illegally punished for disclosing the scandal involving an amount of rupees, more than a crore by the Officers of the Bank. Although, in the impugned order (Annexure - 19) it has been mentioned that the Deputy Development Officer has differed from the inquiry report, yet no cogent reason has been assigned for differing with the inquiry report and coming to a different conclusion. The order is also not based on any material or any evidence on record and the same is based on mere assumptions and presumptions. According to the petitioner, the order is wholly baseless, illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. It has been further stated that the respondent No. 3 is the appellate authority and he has awarded the punishment bye -passing the disciplinary authority and on that score also the impugned order is bad and unsustainable. None of the charges leveled against him has been proved and there is absolutely no material on record to come to any contrary findings and hold the petitioner guilty. The conclusion of the respondent No. 3 is thus wholly whimsical, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
(3.) THE respondents contested the petitioner 'swrit application by filing a counter -affidavit and stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was in connivance with Lal Ravindra Nath Sahadeo and others and had, intentionally and dishonestly, withdrawn the amount, but the same was not deposited in the Bank. The petitioner was a party in misappropriating the amount of the bank alongwith the said persons. The Joint Registrar, who was the Inquiry Officer, had suggested for withholding of two increments and to exonerate the petitioner of the charges. However, the final order is to be passed by the disciplinary authority. The Administrator -cum -Deputy Development Commissioner, thus, issued a second show cause notice but by his reply he could not satisfy the respondent No. 3. It was stated that the petitioner was a co - signatory of the cheques by which the amounts were withdrawn. According to the Audit Report for the year 1995 -96, the money was defaulcated in the previous year. In that way, the petitioner is some how involved in the defaulcation. The petitioner had to prove his innocence before the Inquiry Officer and to satisfy the disciplinary authority, but he could not succeed and as a result, the said order of dismissal was passed by the respondent No. 3 which is correct and legal and there is no merit in the writ application.;