OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a class II employee of District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Mirzapur (for short ''bank'), a Central Co-operative Society, under the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The bank provides finance to various Primary Co-operative Societies, one amongst them being Carabil Arangpani Lampus Co-operative Society, Vikas Khand Myorpur, District Sonbhadra. One Sri Munni Lal was the secretary of the said Society. He committed grave financial irregularities. In a preliminary enquiry held by Dy. General Manager (Development), District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Mirzapur, it transpired that the secretary of the Society, Sri Munni Lal, misappropriated a sum of Rs.24,75,705/-. In his report dated 2.2.2011, he recommended for immediate suspension of Sri Munni Lal, cadre secretary of the Society. He also recommended that all employees of the Bank at branch Myorpur be immediately attached to the head office and in their place other employees be posted, a detailed enquiry be held, as interpolations and cuttings are being carried out in the records of the bank almost every day. In pursuance thereof, the General Manager of the Bank forthwith attached the petitioner to Robertsganj branch of the Bank and he was further directed to handover all the documents to the senior most employee of the Bank by order dated 7/2/2011. By letter dated 24/2/2011, the General Manager of the bank required the Dy. General Manager, Joint Organisation, District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Mirzapur to hold an enquiry into the allegations of collusion between the employees of the Co-operative Society and the Bank and submit his report within 15 days. In pursuance thereof, a further enquiry was held by the Dy. General Manager, Joint Organisation, District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Mirzapur and he submitted a report dated 2/12/2011, in which the findings given in the earlier report of Dy. General Manager (Development) dated 2/2/2011, were endorsed. It surfaced that the petitioner is equally responsible, being head of the bank, which disbursed the loan to the Co-operative Society. After such evidence came into existence, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 23/2/2012 calling upon him to show cause within 15 days as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him. In response to the said notice, the petitioner claims to have submitted his explanation on 22/3/2012, which in the opinion of the General Manager of the Bank was not satisfactory. However, instead of placing the matter before the Committee of Management of the Bank, which is the appointing authority of the petitioner, the General Manager of the bank directed for censure entry being recorded in his character roll for the year 2011-12. Petitioner made a representation for expunging such entry, which request was turned down by the General Manager of the Bank by order dated 10/5/2013.

(2.) On the other hand, the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Society, Sonbhadra, in exercise of the power u/s.65 of the Act held an enquiry and found that Sri Munni Lal, secretary of the Co-operative Society, in collusion with Om Prakash, Branch Manager of District Co-operative Bank, Mirzapur have succeeding in swindling and misappropriating funds of the Bank and the Society to a tune of Rs.24,63,555/-. He submitted a report in this regard on 14/10/2013. On basis of said report, a first information report was lodged by the Dy. Registrar himself on 19/10/2013 against the petitioner and Sri Munni Lal, erstwhile secretary of the Co-operative Society u/ss.467, 468, 420, 471, 409 I.P.C. being crime case no. 329 of 2013. It was then, that the matter was taken up for consideration by the Committee of Management of the Bank, which in the meeting held on 19/11/2013, resolved to place the petitioner under suspension and to hold regular disciplinary proceedings against him. The aforesaid decision of the bank taken in its meeting held on 19/11/2013 was communicated to the petitioner by Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer of the Bank by its letter dated 23/11/2013, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner has also challenged the entire disciplinary proceedings by seeking writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from holding further disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) The parties have exchanged their affidavits and with their consent, this writ petition was heard and is being decided finally as per Rules of the Court.