SHYAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SABHAJEET Yadav, J. By this petition, the petitioner has sought relief of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28. 9. 2006 (Annexure-9 of the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4 namely Managing Director, U. P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. , Lucknow, whereby petitioner's services have been dis pensed with after holding disciplinary inquiry against him and the payment of salary was also denied during the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid to him nothing more paid to him.

(2.) THE relief sought in the writ petition rests on the assertions that while working on the post of Assistant Field Officer in U. P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. , on account of some financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in Pilkhuwa branch, Co-operative Land Development Bank, Ghaziabad, a First Information Report was also lodged against him and he was arrested on 30. 10. 2004 but was released on bail on 2. 11. 2004. THEreafter he was placed under suspension on 3. 11. 2004 pending disciplinary inquiry against him. THEreafter, disciplinary inquiry was initiated and a charge-sheet has been served upon him on 3. 3. 2005 by the Inquiry Officer i. e. Deputy General Manager of the Head Office, Lucknow containing as many as six charges based on the prelimi nary inquiry report, conducted on 3. 11. 2004 ex-parte behind the back of the peti tioner. Acopy of charge sheet is on record asannexure-1 of the writ petition. It is stated that from bare perusal of it, it indicates that the charges levelled in the charge-sheet were sought to be proved either on the basis of inquiry report of Ajay Pal Singh, Deputy Manager, Head Office, Lucknow dated 17. 11. 2004 and/or on the basis of joint inquiry report of Additional Collector, (Land Acquisition) Irriga tion, Ghaziabad and Regional Manager of the Bank, but material on the basis of which charges levelled in the charge-sheet were shown to be proved, were not supplied to the petitioner along with the charge-sheet, therefore, the petitioner sought inspection of relevant documents vide his letter dated 9. 3. 2005, in pursu ance thereof he was permitted to inspect the record of Pilkhuwa branch on 25. 4. 2005 but he could not inspect all the documents, hence sought further time to inspect the same but on 27. 4. 2005 no further time was given to the petitioner to make inspection of the remaining records. However, somehow or other, he sub mitted his reply to the charge-sheet on the basis of available materials denying the charges levelled against him.

(3.) CONTRARY to it, Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that before passing the impugned order full opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. In pursuance of earlier direction of this Court Sri Nripendra Mishra has also produced the record before this Court at the time of hearing. On the basis of record produced before the Court Sri Nripendra Mishra has made statement that the petitioner was given opportunity of personal hearing before the Managing Director of the Bank, who was disciplinary authority of the petitionerand he has appeared before the Managing Director on 24. 6. 2006 before impugned order was passed against him but except to written reply earlier sub mitted by him, he could not adduce any defence evidence in support of his case. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard on that count at this stage before this Court and he cannot blame the Disciplinary Authority on alleged fault in disciplin ary proceedings held against him.