UMA SHANKER VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Sri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent-State.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.06.2008 passed by the opposite party no.5, by means of which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. He has further prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to produce the orders passed by the District Magistrate/ Administrator of the District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Barabanki and the order passed by the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, opposite party no.6 for according the approval for dismissal of the petitioner and further to quash the same.

(3.) Brief facts of the case for adjudication of the case in hand are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the lower grade Assistant Cadre in the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Barabanki on 27.11.1981, which is a central society within the meanings of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Subsequently, he was promoted in the clerical cadre and posted as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the main branch of the District Cooperative Bank, Barabanki at Nawabganj. While the petitioner was working as a Clerk/Cashier in the Nawabganj branch, a chargesheet dated 14.10.2004 was issued and served on the petitioner. The charge levelled against the petitioner was for being responsible in the embezzlement alleged to have been committed by Sri Udit Narain Verma, the then Branch Manager of the Bank at Nawabganj Branch for taking loans in his and in the name of his family members on various dates between the year 1999-2000 to 2002-2003. The petitioner submitted an application dated 27.10.2004 bringing in knowledge of the enquiry officer that the chargesheet was not accompanied by the relevant documents and prayed for making available the relevant documents to him. The relevant documents were not made available to the petitioner and under compelling circumstances, he had to submit his reply on 10.12.2004 in which the petitioner had denied the allegations levelled against him.