Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30216 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5616 of 2025 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Respondent :- U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited Thru. Managing Director Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- Vinod Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Piyush Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties. 2. By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief:- "(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI to quash the impugned punishment order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure No.2) passed by the Managing Director of the bank vide which the direction to deduct Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty thousand only) per month from the monthly Pay of the petitioner starting from the month of February 2025 till the whole amount Rs.9,05,989 alongwith the upto date interest is deduct has been given to the concerning officers of the Bank. (ii) A writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIOR quashing impugned order dated 27.03.2025 (Annex No.1) passed by the Chairman of the bank in the Appeal of the petitioner against the impugned punishment order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Managing Director of the bank. (iii) A writ order direction in the nature of MANDAMAS Commanding the opposite parties not to deduct any amount from the pay and dues of the petitioner on the basis of impugned punishment order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Managing Director of the bank." 3. While challenging the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed by Managing Director, the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid punishment order has been passed without conducting any inquiry against the petitioner and without affording an opportunity of hearing. Though, one show cause notice dated 27.05.2022 (Annexure-5) was issued to the petitioner but in that show cause notice the impugned punishment has not been indicated therefore, so far as the impugned punishment is concerned, the show cause notice is insufficient. The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 before the Appellate Authority i.e. Chairman who also passed an impugned order dated 27.03.2025 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the Inquiry Officer has found irregularity in the issue in question, therefore, the charge against the petitioner is proved. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that neither any charges-heet was issued to the petitioner nor any inquiry has been conducted, therefore, recitals to this effect by the appellate authority is erroneous and the same is apparent error on fact of the record. 5. Sri Vinod Kumar Singh has however tried to defend the impugned order by submitting that petitioner while serving the account at particular branch of the bank was instrumental to disburse the loan to a person who was not eligible to get the loan, therefore the petitioner was issued show cause notice. However, he has fairly submitted that in the show cause notice dated 27.05.2022 this has not been indicated that in case his explanation is not found suitable, he would be subjected to recovery. 6. Having heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find that the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without conducting any inquiry in respect of the punishment in question, therefore, the same is liable to be set- aside. The appellate authority has also passed the order dated 27.03.2025 without verifying the documents inasmuch as no chargehseet was issued to the petitioner nor any inquiry in a issue has been conducted but the recitals to this effect has been indicated in the appellate order, therefore, the appellate order dated 27.032025 is also liable to be set-aside. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure-2) passed by Managing Director of the bank and impugned appellate order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure-1) are hereby set-aside/ quashed only on the aforesaid grounds alone. 8. Consequences to follow. 9. It is always open for the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order against the petitioner, if it is so required but following due procedure of law and if such decision is taken, exercise so undertaken would be concluded with expedition strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 /Reena (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench