Deepak Saini @APPELLANT@Hash Managing Director

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the inquires under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control

and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (‘the Rules of 1958’) and under Section 55 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (‘the Act of

2001’), initiated against him.

A report dated 30.03.2016 by the Chief Manager of the Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (‘the Bank’) was lodged with SHO, Police

Station — Rawat Bhata, inter alia, indicating that an amount of Rs.71,12,023/- was withdrawn from Interest Withdrawal Account of the Bank and

transferred to other accounts out of which a sum of Rs.35,72,023/- was deposited back to the Bank’s Account.

It was, inter alia, also reported that petitioner’s ID was used to authorize the transactions; an FIR was registered and investigation was

commenced; the police filed charge-sheet against 10 accused and the same was kept pending against the petitioner under Section 173(8) of the

Cr.P.C., the petitioner was arrested and was granted bail by this Court and was subsequently suspended on 05.04.2017.

A charge-sheet dated 15.12.2017 (Annex.-6) under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 read with Bank’s Service Rules, was issued to the petitioner, on

05.01.2018, Assistant Registrar and Executive Officer of the Bank was appointed as Inquiry Officer.

Another notice dated 12.01.2018 was issued to the petitioner, inter alia, indicating that the Assistant Registrar and Secretary of the Cooperative Land

Development Bank, Chittorgarh was appointed as Inquiry Officer for inquiry under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 for investigating the irregular financial transactions between the period 27.02.2017 to 29.03.2017 and calling upon the petitioner to appear before him.

It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in initiating and conducting two simultaneous inquiries against the petitioner are arbitrary and against the constitutional rights of the petitioner. Further submissions have been made that the provisions of

Rules of 1958, in which the charge-sheet (Annex.-6) has been issued have no application to the employees of the respondent-Bank. Further submissions were made that once the charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner, simultaneous inquiry under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 and the criminal proceedings cannot proceed.

Reliance was also placed on an affidavit of one Bhanu Prakash Sharma confessing to the use of different IDs of the Bank officials to transfer the money in the account of other persons and that on account of such confession, the matter otherwise also cannot proceed against the petitioner. It was prayed that both the inquiries i.e. one pursuant to the charge-sheet (Annex.-6) and another under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 be quashed and set

aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

So far as the applicability of the Rules of 1958 is concerned, a perusal of the charge-sheet (Annex.-6) indicates that the same has been issued under

Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 read with Service Rules of the Bank. It was fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of

Rules of 1958 have indeed been adopted under Service Rules of the Bank and in view thereof, the submission made in this regard has no substance.

So far as the holding of two simultaneous inquiries is concerned, while the proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 pertain to the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner and consequence thereof pertains to the service of the petitioner with the Bank without which, if found guilty no action against the petitioner can be taken. On the other hand, the proceedings under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 deal with the inquiry by the

Registrar pertaining to the activities of the Banks during a particular period qua the financial irregularities and therein the petitioner has been called upon to appear before the Inquiry Officer.

The holding of the inquiry under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 does not overlap with inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 as the scope of both the inquiries is different and deal with different aspects and, therefore, the submissions made in this regard also have no substance.

So far as the reliance placed on the affidavit given by one Bhanu Prakash Sharma confessing to the wrong doing is concerned, the said aspect can be raised by the petitioner during the course of both the inquiries and therein the concerned authorities would deal with the same appropriately. At this

stage, no credence can be given to any material sought to be produced by the petitioner in this regard.

Feeble submissions were made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has sought copies of several documents from the Bank, which have not been made available.

A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner has asked for innumerable documents and the demand made has been responded by offering inspection of the documents to the petitioner and providing copies wherever possible.

In view thereof, the plea sought to be raised feebly by learned counsel for the petitioner also has no substance.

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.