Syed Israr Ahmad v. U . P. , Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd, Thru, Its Managing Director, 10, Mall Avenue Lko
2022-01-17
RAJAN ROY
body2022
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : Rajan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties. 2. The petitioner is working as Assistant Field Officer in the opposite party- Co-operative Bank. 3. It is said that the Branch, where the petitioner was working, has disbursed certain loan and the petitioner and others were also instrumental in disbursement of such loan. 4. According to the learned counsel for petitioner merely because the loan advanced could not be paid by the beneficiaries and the same could not be recovered through the Bank, therefore, the Managing Director of the Co-operative Society has straightway ordered recovery of the said loan amount from the petitioner. He says that there is no such provision in the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975 under which the impugned could have been passed in such a manner. 5. On being confronted Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties submitted that the petitioner along with others had given loan to ineligible persons on account of which the recovery could not be made, therefore, it being a misconduct he is liable accordingly. However, he fairly submitted that the principal of natural justice as also the procedure prescribed in the concerned Regulations should have been adhered. He very fairly submitted that the impugned order can be quashed, however, with liberty to opposite parties to proceed and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 6. Having considered the facts of the case this Court is of the opinion that the recovery could not have been ordered from the petitioner in such a manner without even a show cause assuming that it was otherwise permissible in accordance with the Regulations of 1975. The order being violative of the principal of natural justice the same is quashed, however, with liberty to the concerned opposite party to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and pass a fresh order in the matter. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is allowed but only in the aforesaid terms.