KHEM SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/ADMINISTRATOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri Aseem Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the Appellants. Shri Manish Goyal appears for the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Moradabad.

(2.) Shri Khem Singh, the Petitioner -Appellant in Special Appeal No. 982 of 2007; Shri Rajvir Singh son of Shri Khoob Singh, the Petitioner Appellant in Special Appeal No. 3 of 2000 and Shri Rajvir Singh the Petitioner Appellant in Special Appeal No. 4 of 2009 are aggrieved by common judgment of learned Single Judge dated 22.5.2007 by which he dismissed the Writ Petition Nos. 7366 of 1993; 5382 of 1993 and 5384 of 1983 challenging the orders by which the Petitioners' services as Clerks/ Cashiers in the bank were dismissed on the charges of indiscipline and embezzlement of public money. The Petitioners had challenged the orders on the ground that the charges were based on audit objections in the case of Khem Singh and were not proved for embezzlement in respect of Rajvir Singh son of Khoob Singh, and Rajvir Singh son of Rabhubar Singh. The Petitioners were not shown the documents, which was relied upon in the chargesheet. No enquiry was held in respect of charges, and no evidence was led to prove the allegations. The Petitioners were not given opportunity to cross -examine the witness and to lead defence evidence. The Cooperative Institutional Service Board did not approve the dismissal order both on the ground that the documents relied upon to prove the charges were not given to the Petitioners, nor any inspection was permitted, and also that the procedure for departmental enquiry as contemplated under Rule 85 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Service Regulations, 1975, was not followed. The matter was remanded by the Cooperative Institutional Service Board for holding enquiry in accordance with law, but that no enquiry was held thereafter. The Managing Director of the Bank persuaded the Cooperative Institutional Service Board to approve the order of dismissal. The Board, thereafter, without ensuring compliance of the order for holding disciplinary enquiry afresh, after giving opportunity to the Petitioners mechanically approved the order on which the District Magistrate/ Administrator of the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Moradabad vide his order dated 13th May, 1983 dismissed the Petitioners from service.

(3.) Shri Aseem Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner -Appellant submits that the learned Single Judge wrongly clubbed all the three cases together and decided them after narrating the charges of only one of the Petitioner namely Shri Rajvir Singh son of Shri Khoob Singh. The matter had earlier come up for hearing before Hon. R.B. Misra, J., who had vide order dated 2.8.2004 dismissed the writ petition, allegedly on statement made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner Shri K.P. Agarwala that the Petitioner has been paid 2/3rd of their dues after retirement and that the writ petition has become infructuous. The orders were challenged in special appeals. The Division Bench found that the writ petition against the dismissal order could not have become infructuous by efflux of time. A perusal of the order of learned Single Judge did not show that it was a consent order or that any statement was made by learned Counsel, who had appeared for the Appellant. The order dated 2.8.2004 was set aside and the matter was remanded.