DEOKI NANDAN PARASAR Vs. CHAIRMAN DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE CADRE AUTHORITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK CENTRALISED SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hem Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THERE are three connected writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 12713 of 1993 has been filed for quashing the order dated 14-3-93 (received on 21-3-98) issued by Member Secretary Cadre Authority, Co- operative Bank Centralised Services, dismissing the petitioner from service as Senior Manager, District Co-operative Bank and to quash the entire disciplinary proceedings beginning from the order of suspension dated 2-1-97 and also the charge sheet dated 6-1-97. The second relief claimed in the writ petition is for reinstatement of the petitioner as 'officer on Special duty' District Co-operative Bank, Agra with full back wages with interest at bank rates and all other benefits.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was appointed on 14-5-1963 as Office Assistant in Agra District Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred as the Bank) and he was confirmed on the said post on 14-5-1964. On 16-10-1964 the petitioner was promoted as Executive Officer and was confirmed after completion of one-year probation on 16-10-1965. On 25-8-1966 the petitioner's service was terminated by resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank. THE petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed on 3-9-1966 by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies U. P. Subsequently the order dated 3-9-1966 was recalled by the Successor Registrar on 17-10-1967 which was challenged in a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed in limine on 24-10-1967. THE petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was allowed on 23-8- 1972 holding that the order dated 17-10-1967, withdrawing the earlier order is void and respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and all the benefits accrued to him during the aforesaid period. In pursuance to the order-dated 23-8-1972, the petitioner was allowed to join only on 10-10-1975, despite the fact he had submitted his joining report on 25-8-1972. However, the petitioner was given all his arrears of salary after he was permitted to join.