Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42308 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18887 of 2024 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Petitioner before this Court has declared that he was appointed as Accountant and he was also assigned field work in regard to encourage the people to take loan from respondent bank i.e. an Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Etawah. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has received a notice dated 26.04.2024 that his work was not up to mark and he has not achieved requisite target of opening 15 loan accounts. 4. He further submits that a reply was submitted by petitioner on 01.07.2024 wherein a reason was mentioned that he was suffering from some illness, therefore, he was not able to achieve the target. He further submits that thereafter impugned order was passed whereby petitioner's salary has been reduced up to 50% till he would achieve the target. The order impugned is de-hors to any rule or provision. 5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioner's reply was considered and since he was not able to achieve the target as well as he remained absent from bank without any information or without any medical leave, therefore, his reply was rejected and impugned order was passed. 6. To a specific query of this Court that under which provision, impugned order could be passed i.e. to reduce salary up to 50%, learned counsel for respondent has not able to show any specific provision under U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 except that under regulations of Society, an action can be taken against petitioner. Bye-laws of Society are not on record. So far as allegations of absent are concerned, the contents of writ petition is also silent. 7. In aforesaid circumstances, it appears that petitioner is not diligent towards his duties and he remained absent without any information. Despite above, since there is no provision to reduce salary of petitioner up to 50%, it is not brought into notice of this Court, therefore, impugned order dated 26.04.2024 in present form does not survive, hence, set aside. 8. However, if the bank has provisions under Bye-laws of Society, it may take action against petitioner in accordance with law. So far as petitioner is concerned, he has to improve his conduct and in case he remains absent without any leave, the respondent bank will be at liberty to take action against him. 9. In view of above, by putting petitioner on caution, this writ petition is disposed of with above observations. 10. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way if the respondent bank takes appropriate action against petitioner in accordance with law after adhering principles of natural justice. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad