# Ram Kishore v. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 506
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2700 of 2014
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kishore-v-u-p-sahkari-gram-vikas-bank-ltd-54252
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 2 ILRA 506
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ A No. 2700 of 2014

Ram Kishore ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of disciplinary proceeding and punishment order passed against the charged person holding the
post of Accountant on the allegation of irregularity caused in sanctioning the loan, though the Accountant has
no role in sanctioning the loan.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding - Punishment - Stoppage of two annual increments in
the salary with cumulative effect - Inquiry - Charge of sanctioning a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- in
violation of guidelines and of disbursing the installment without following the time limit was
leveled - The petitioner, being an Accountant, had no role in sanctioning the loan and making
inspection before sanctioning the loan - Relevance - However, the petitioner was held guilty of
charges - Validity challenged : (E-1)
Held : Recommending sanction of loan fell within the purview of duties of the field officer and sanctioning the
loan was within the duty of the branch manager and the accountant has no role to play in it. Therefore, the
petitioner can in no manner be held guilty for the first charge - Moreover, making inspection and ensuring
proper utilization of the loan amount and reporting misutilization of loan amount or improper execution of the
project falls within the duties of the field officer and ensuring proper utilization of the loan falls within the
duties of the branch manager. The petitioner, who was merely an accountant, had no role to play in these
processes. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the second charge also. [Para 15 and 16]

List of Acts
Co-operative Societies Employee Service Regulations, 1975 - Regulation 84 (i); Circular dated 18/19.02.1976.

List of Keywords
Punishment, Stoppage of two annual increments in the salary with cumulative effect, Disciplinary proceedings,
Sanction of loan, Local inspection, Verification report, Utilization certificate, Misappropriate, Show cause
notice, Explanation, Fair chance of defence, Decision making process, Inspection report, Misutilization of loan
amount, Unsustainable in law.

Case Arising From
Punishment order dated 25.06.2009 passed by Managing Director and the Order dismissing the appeal by the
appellate authority against the punishment order.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Piyush Asthana.
Advs. for the Respondents : Singh Vinod Kumar, Balram Yadav.
2 All. Ram Kishore Vs. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.
507
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Piyush Asthana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Balram Yadav, the
learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 25.06.2009, passed by the Managing
Director of U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. imposing the punishments of stoppage of two
annual increments in the salary with cumulative effect and recovery of 20% of the amount of loss
in case the loan irregularly disbursed by the petitioner is not recovered. The petitioner had
challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal. The Chief General Manager, Administration
U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow has written a letter dated 12.08.2011 stating that the
petitioner's appeal has been found to be not maintainable and has been disposed off by means of an
order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Principal Secretary, Cooperative. However, a copy of any
order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Principal Secretary, Cooperative has not been provided to
the petitioner.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as an Accountant
in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank, Branch Kuwayan, District Shahjahanpur, disciplinary
proceedings were instituted against him on 15.05.2008 on the allegations that a loan of
Rs.1,50,000/- was sanctioned in favour of a farmer under a dairy scheme, a cheque for Rs.75,000/-
was handed over to him on 09.01.2007 towards the first installment and the second installment of
Rs.75,000/- was released on 11.01.2007 in violation of the guidelines issued by the Bank.

4. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 02.08.2008 containing two charges - (i) that
he had not followed the time limit between disbursal of two installments of loan as per the
directions of the head office and (ii) during local inspection by Senior Manager, buffaloes were not
found as per the standards.

5. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 08/09.09.2008 stating that he had prepared and
handed over the cheques as per the instructions of the Branch Manager. After disbursal of the first
installment of loan, the Field Officer of the Bank had conducted an inquiry and had submitted a
report that the farmer had purchased the buffaloes from the first installment and he had
recommended disbursal of the second installment. This recommendation was approved by the
Branch Manager and the petitioner was directed to prepare a cheque for Rs.75,000/- on 11.01.2007.
The petitioner categorically stated that it was his duty to comply with the orders of the Branch
Manager and he had prepared the cheques in compliance of this duty. Regarding second charge the
petitioner submitted that the Senior Manager had made a verification and found the buffaloes to be
not of the requisite standards but the petitioner is not guilty for it it because the project had been
verified by the Field Officer and the Branch Manager. In the verification report submitted by the
Field Officer it was not mentioned that the amount of loan had been misappropriated. The inquiry
was to be done by the Field Officer and the Branch Manager and not by the petitioner who was
working as an Accountant.
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. The inquiry officer submitted a report dated 06.11.2008, specifically stating that the
petitioner does not appear to be guilty directly, but as the loan was given in an irregular manner, the
petitioner cannot escape his responsibilities. Regarding the second charge also the inquiry officer
held that the Field Officer and Branch Manager were responsible for local inspection because it is
their duty to furnish a verification report. The Field Officer has conducted a local inspection in the
present case and had submitted a utilization certificate. However, the inquiry officer stated that
when the loan has been given in an irregular manner the Accountant could not escape his
responsibility.

7. A show cause notice dated 18.02.2009 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show
cause as to why two annual increments be not stopped with cumulative effect and why 20% of the
amount of loan be not recovered from him. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 13.03.2009
reiterating the version given by him during inquiry. The petitioner further stated that he had not
misappropriated any money of the bank because neither he had prepared the loan file nor had he
given the utilization certificate. He stated that he is a subordinate employee and he had merely
complied with the directions of his officer and he was duty bound to do so.

8. On 25.06.2009 the Managing Director has passed the impugned order inflicting punishment
of stoppage of two annual increments in the salary with cumulative effect and also providing that in
case the loan irregularly disbursed by the appellant is not recovered 20% of the amount involved
will be recovered from salary/dues of the petitioner. The appellate authority has merely affirmed
the order and a copy of the reasoned order passed by the appellate authority has not yet been
provided to the petitioner and it has not been annexed even with the counter affidavit.

9. Before proceeding to deal with the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the
parties, it is important to mention that the impugned order merely states that the reply given by the
petitioner to the show cause notice had been taken into consideration by the competent authority,
without disclosing as to who was the competent authority who had considered the petitioner's
explanation. The authority which passes an order adverse to any person, has himself to take into
consideration the explanation submitted by the affected person so that he may have a fair chance of
defence. The consideration of the explanation by any other authority indicates that the authority
who has passed the order adverse to the employee, has not applied his mind to the explanation
given by the employee. The aforesaid error vitiates the decision making process adopted by the
disciplinary authority and renders the impugned order violative of principles of natural justice. The
impugned order could be quashed on this limited ground alone, but as detailed submissions have
been advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties on merits of the order, I proceed to examine
deal with the same.

10. Assailing the validity of the punishment order and the appellate order the learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that duties of various officers and employees of U.P. Rajya Sahkari
Bhumi Vikas Bank have been provided in a Circular dated 18.02.1976/19.02.1976, a copy whereof
has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition. The duties of an accountant are to work
under control of the Branch Manager and to prepare the documents. His duties also include comply
with audit reports and inspection reports. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
sanctioning loans, making field inspections or submitting field reports, and disbursement of loans
2 All. Ram Kishore Vs. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.
509
were not within the purview of the duties of the petitioner and he had not performed any of such
duties. The alleged misconduct is of disbursal of two installments of a loan within a short period in
violation of the guidelines and that the borrower had purchased buffaloes which were not as per the
standards. The inquiry officer himself has recorded a categorical finding that the applicant is not
involved in the aforesaid acts directly. When as per the circular the alleged irregular acts were not
within the purview of duties of the petitioner and the inquiry officer himself has found that the
petitioner is not guilty of the commission of the aforesaid acts directly, the petitioner cannot be
punished for an act for which the inquiry officer has held him to be not guilty directly.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provision contained in
Regulation 84 (i) of the Co-operative Societies Employee Service Regulations, 1975, which is as
follows: -

"Without prejudice to the provisions contained in any other regulation, an employee who
commits a breach of duty enjoined upon him or has been convicted for criminal ofence or an
offence under Section 103 of the Act or does anything prohibited by these regulations, shall be
liable to be punished by anyone of the following penalties: -

(a) Censure

(b) withholding of increment,

(c) fine on employee of category IV (peon, chaukidar etc.)

(d) recovery from pay of security deposit to compensate in whole or in part for any
pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by the employee's conduct,

(e) reduction in rank or grade held substantively by the employee,

(f) removal from service, or

(g) dismissal from service."

12. He has submitted that although the regulations permit imposition of any one of the
prescribed penalties, by means of the impugned order two penalties have been imposed upon the
petitioner: recovery from pay and withholding of two increments with cumulative effects, which is
not permissible in the regulations.

13. Opposing the writ petition, Shri Balram Yadav, the learned counsel for the opposite party
has submitted that the duties of the accountant include compliance with audit and inspection reports
and, therefore, it was incumbent on the petitioner to have verified whether the inspection report
submitted by the field officer was correct or not. I am unable to accept this submission because
compliance with audit and inspection report does not mean verification of inspection report. Being
a subordinate employee the petitioner was bound to comply with the inspection report submitted by
the field officer and the direction issued by the branch manager in furtherance thereof.

14. It is also relevant to note that the Circular dated 18/19.02.1976 issued by U. P. Rajya
Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. lays down the duties of branch manager, which include
examination of loan applications, examination of fulfillment of conditions for grant of loan,
ensuring proper utilization of the loan and exercising control over all the employees of his branch
and supervision of their work. The duties of field officers include making recommendations for
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sanction of loans, examining the loan documents, making inspection and ensuring proper utilization
of the loan amount, collecting loan applications and reporting misutilization of loan amount or
improper execution of the project. He is also responsible to exercise control over the working of the
branch in absence of the branch manager.

15. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that recommending sanction of loan fell within
the purview of duties of the field officer and sanctioning the loan was within the duty of the branch
manager and the accountant has no role to play in it. Therefore, the petitioner can in no manner be
held guilty for the first charge.

16. Moreover, making inspection and ensuring proper utilization of the loan amount and
reporting misutilization of loan amount or improper execution of the project falls within the duties
of the field officer and ensuring proper utilization of the loan falls within the duties of the branch
manager. The petitioner, who was merely an accountant, had no role to play in these processes.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the second charge also.

17. Shri Balram Yadav has next submitted that the petitioner has not been inflicted with two
penalties as the impugned order merely states that in case the amount is not recovered from the
borrower, 20% amount will be recovered from the petitioner. This is a contingent order. The
contingency has not yet arrived and 20% of the amount of loss has not been recovered from the
petitioner. Therefore, his submission is that only one penalty has been inflicted upon the petitioner.
I find no force in this submission also, as imposing a penalty and execution of the punishment order
are two different and distinct things. The impugned order clearly and categorically inflicts two
penalties on the petitioner which is not permissible as per Regulation 84(i) quoted above.

18. In the aforesaid facts circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the
impugned punishment order dated 25.06.2009, passed by the Managing Director of U.P. Sahkari
Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Is not sustainable in law and it deserves to be quashed.

19. The dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against the punishment order has been
communicated by a letter dated 12.08.2011 sent by the Chief General Manager, Administration
U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow. The appeal has purportedly been dismissed by the
appellate authority - the Prescribed Authority/Principal Secretary, Cooperative. However, a copy of
any order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Principal Secretary, Cooperative has not been
provided to the petitioner and no such order has been annexed with the counter affidavit. From, the
aforesaid facts, it appears that the appeal has been dismissed in a cursory manner without any
application of mind by the appellate authority and without any reasoned order having passed by the
appellate authority himself, which is also unsustainable in law.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The punishment orders are hereby quashed. The
petitioner shall be entitled to receive all consequential benefits. The opposite parties are directed to
calculate the benefits payable to the petitioner and pay the same expeditiously in accordance with
law say within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

21.
No
order
as
to
the
costs.
2 All. Mishri Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
511
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 511
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 9735 of 2016

Mishri Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Entitlement of retired employee to get interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits.
(2) Applicability of Government Order dated 26.03.2010 providing benefit of the recommendations of Sixth
Pay Commission to the petitioner, who was already retired on 31.07.2007.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Retiral benefits - Inordinate delay in payment of the retiral dues, including the
gratuity and leave encashment - Interest on the delayed payment claimed - Entitlement : (E-1)
Held : It is trite law that retiral benefits are not a bounty to be distributed by the Government to its
employees after their retirement, but these are valuable rights and property in the hands of the retired
employees. In fact, non-payment of retiral dues is the harassment of the retired employee, who rendered his
services with dedication and devotion, and if the retiral dues are paid with inordinate delay, suitable interest in
a compensatory nature shall suffice the purpose so as to solace harassed employee - The competent
authority is directed to make payment of interest on the delayed payment of post terminal dues (gratuity and
leave encashment), with interest of 7% per annum, to the petitioner, within period of eight weeks. [Para 22
and 36]
(B) Service law - Recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission, benefit thereof - Petitioner was
retired on 31.07.2007 - Entitlement to get the benefit of recommendation - Government Order
dated 26.03.2010 was issued providing the same benefits with immediate effect - Applicability -
Authority declined to provide the benefit - Validity challenged : (E-1)
Held : The government order dated 26.03.2010, which is still intact, prescribes that the benefit of the Sixth
Pay Commission shall be provided with immediate effect, meaning thereby i.e. from the date of the issuance
of the government order dated 26.03.2010 and it further says that the notional benefits shall also be
considered since January, 2006. The admitted position is that the benefit of recommendations of the Sixth Pay
Commission has notionally been granted to the petitioner and since the petitioner was retired in the year,
2007, therefore, the benefit of the govt. order dated 26.03.2010 would not be available to the petitioner, in
totality. [Para 32]

Case Law Cited
Union of India vs. Balbir Singh Turn, AIR 2018 SC 206; State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, reported in
(1985) 1 SCC 429; Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Constructions, reported in 1994(23) ALR 40 (SC);
D.D. Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others,
(2014) 8 SCC 894; H. Gangahanume Gowda vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 40 -
referred to.

List of Acts