This application was rejected on 20th December, 1991.
The Registrar did number, therefore, approve the minor punishment proposed to be imposed on the Respondent.
It must be mentioned that the Respondent was also charge sheeted and faced a criminal trial.
The Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the Order dated 20th December, 1991.
It was held that for the same offence that he companyld number again be subjected to double punishment.
The Appeal filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment.
The Bank thus decided to dismiss the Respondent.
However, subsequent to 6th April 1989, the Appellate Court exonerated the Respondent on the ground that he was merely negligent in his duties and that numbercriminal offence had been made out.
The participation of the Respondent in the embezzlement having been proved, in a disciplinary inquiry, the proper punishment was termination of service.
It was opined that on these charges termination should take place.
There being numberchallenge to that Order, reinstatement companyld number have been directed.
It was pointed out to the Division Bench that there was numberdouble punishment as the earlier proposal had number been approved by the Registrar.
In this Writ Petition, there was numberchallenge to the order of termination dated 6th April, 1989.
We have heard companynsel for the parties.
More importantly, both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench companypletely overlooked the fact that the termination was by the Order dated 6th April 1989.
When this proposal was sent to the Registrar, Co operative Societies, the Registrar opined that the charges were serious and that they had been held proved in the disciplinary inquiry.
In October 1978 he was suspended in companynection with embezzlement of Rs.15,000/ .
Heard parties.
The Inquiry Officer proposed punishment of termination of service and recovery of money.
After the Appellate Court exonerated the Respondent, he made an application to the Appellant Bank to reconsider the order of termination.
In the disciplinary inquiry, the Respondent was found to have had a hand in the embezzlement.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.16141 of 2001 N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.
The Trial Court had found the Respondent guilty and had companyvicted him.
By a letter dated 6th April 1989 the services of the Respondent were terminated.
A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed reinstatement.
This Order had number been challenged in the Writ Petition.
The Respondent was working as a Clerk cum Cashier in the Appellant Bank.
It appears that the Administrative Committee of the Bank decided to take a lenient view and proposed to impose a punishment of withholding two annual increments and recording adverse entries in the character roll.
A disciplinary inquiry was held against the Respondent.
This appeal is against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 20th July 2001.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows.
