JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. - The petitioner Ganga Prasad Misra, clerkcumcashier of District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Barabanki was removed from service by order dated 25.11.1983, contained in Annexure I tothe writ petition. This is an application to stay operation of that order. 2. A charge sheet dated 14. 12. 1979, Annexure 6 to the writ petition, on 13 heads of charges, including Charges nos. I to4 and 13 relating to criminal offences was served upon the petitioner. He submitted a reply on 9. 12. 1980, Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The Enquiry officer submitted his report, finding certain charges to be proved. The Administrative officer gave a second show cause notice dated 23. 4. 1981, Annexure 54 to the supplementary counter affidavit, along with a copy of enquiry report, to the petitioner to show cause. No further reply was submitted by the petitioner. Ultimately, the Administrative Officer passed the impugned termination order. 3. The short point in this application is that after the petitioner had submitted his reply, dated 9. 12. 1980, Annexure 7, no enquiry, whatsoever, was held by the Enquiry officer. It is said that no opportunity of crossexamining the departmental witnesses, producing defence witnesses, or of personal hearing, was given to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner had also urged that he had not been furnished copies of certain documents in the supplementary counteraffidavit, however, it is indicated by the opposite party that necessary copies of documents had been supplied and opportunity to peruse the documents had been given. In para 20 of the writ petition it was stated, inter alia, that petitioner had not been given an opportunity to crossexamine departmental witnesses, produce his own witnesses in defence, or have a personal hearing. In para 22 of the counter affidavit there was no specific denial of these allegations, all that was said was that all copies of the documents, required by the petitioner, had been furnished to him. In Para 24 of the counter affidavit it was said that the Administrative officer had terminated the petitioner after looking into the facts and circumstances of the enquiry report and reply of the petitioner and before removal, the prior approval of the Institutional Services Board was also obtained. In Para 24 of the counter affidavit it was said that the Administrative officer had terminated the petitioner after looking into the facts and circumstances of the enquiry report and reply of the petitioner and before removal, the prior approval of the Institutional Services Board was also obtained. In the supplementary counter affidavit, in para 8, it was said that after the petitioner had been given opportunity to peruse the documents, the petitioner did not turn up and subsequently the enquiry proceeding was conducted in accordance with the law. By order dated 29. 3. 1985 this Court had called upon the opposite parties to indicate what proceedings of enquiry were held after the petitioner had filed his reply (Annexure7.) The supplementary counter affidavit does not give details of the proceedings which were taken after the petitioner had submitted his reply Annexure7, all that is stated is that when the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, a show cause notice dated 23.4. 1981, was served upon the petitioner with an opportunity of personal hearing to show cause against the proposed punishment. It was stated in the supplementary counter affidavit (Para 8) that the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry voluntarily. 5. Prima facie, the opportunity of personal hearing was given after the Enquiry officer had recorded his findings, not before. Apparently, no enquiry on charges was held after receipt of the petitioner's reply (Annexure7) and the opposite parties simply appear to have treated the petitioner's reply to be unsatisfactory on the face of it under Regulation 85 (1)(c) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. That is not what the Regulation contemplates the finding that the explanation submitted is unsatisfactory has to be arrived at after the holding of enquiry by the Enquiry officer who has to conduct the enquiry with due observance of the principles of natural justice and for that purpose, inter alia, to give opportunity to produce at his own cost or to crossexamine witnesses in his defence an opportunity of being heard in person if the employee so desires, vide Regulation 85 (1)(b). 6. Learned counsel for opposite parties says that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of approaching the Registrar under Regulation 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975. 6. Learned counsel for opposite parties says that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of approaching the Registrar under Regulation 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975. It has been stated in Para 23 of the writ petition that the petitioner approached the Registrar but with no relief. Moreover, not in every case availability of an alternative relief would dislodge the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties then says that the termination order was passed in November, 1983 and about 1 years have elapsed since then and it would not be proper to stay operation of the impugned order and that instead it would he appropriate to direct the writ petition itself be heard at an early date as has been done in respect of other writ petitions. 8. This writ petition was filed on 20.2.1984 and it is not for any fault of the petitioner that hearing on the application for interim relief could not materialise. Delay in court proceedings should not disentitle a person to a relief which he should otherwise (sic) writ petition is not in my hands. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties then says that the petitioner is involved in a number of serious criminal offences and it would not be fair to stay operation of the termination order. A criminal offence is a serious matter undoubtedly but that by itself would not exonerate the administrative authority from acting in accordance with law. On a[ consideration of the matters, the further operation of termination order, dated 25. 11. 1983, contained in Annexure I tothe writ petition, is stayed. 10. The opposite parties will be at liberty to take work or not to take work from petitioner. It will also be at liberty to place the petitioner under suspension in accordance with law, including Regulation 85(vi) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Service Regulations, 1975, But the opposite parties shall continue to pay in future to the petitioner his salary with allowances, or subsistence allowance on suspension, as the case may be, till the disposal of the Writ petition. 11. The opposite parties will also be at liberty, if they so desire, to hold proceedings of enquiry on charges at the stages beyond the filing of the petitioner's reply, contained in Annexure7 to the writ petition. [Stay granted]