JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Branch Manager at Branch Rudrapur of Deoria-Kasaya, Zila Sahkari Bank Limited.
3. It is alleged that on 13.11.2000 and 20.3.2001 two new accounts were opened when the petitioner was on field duty and was not present in the bank. When the balance sheet was being prepared it came into light that Rs. 46,000 and Rs. 33,000 were fraudulently withdrawn from the bank through the aforesaid two new accounts without depositing any money.
4. On 26.10.2002, when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fact, he made a complaint to the Higher authorities. Sri Shyam Nawal Yadav, Senior Manager was appointed to conduct a preliminary enquiry and report of preliminary enquiry dated 26.10.2002 was submitted. On the direction of the Superior Officers, the petitioner made a complaint dated 29.10.2002 to the police along with inquiry report dated 26.10.2002 and F.I.R. was lodged on 2.11.2002.
5. Thereafter the respondents vide order dated 15.11.2002, asked 3 persons Arvind Kumar Singh, Rajendra Prasad and the petitioner to deposit certain amount. The petitioner protested, and was served with a charge-sheet dated 21.12.2002 to which he submitted reply.
6. It is also alleged that again a supplementary charge-sheet dated 1.2.2003 was served on the petitioner to which he again submitted reply on 21.2.2003. Enquiry Officer was appointed in the matter who after conducting the enquiry submitted his report, dated 25/26.6.2003. A show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 26.8.2003 proposing for recovery of Rs. 1,27,427 with interest thereon and stoppage of one increment with permanent effect. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 30.10.2003 and by order dated 24.1.2004 the petitioner was reinstated in service by awarding punishments proposed above in the show cause notice.
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2003 this writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
8. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri K.N. Mishra, counsel for the respondents that the terms and conditions of the employees of the respondents-Co-operative Bank are governed by the U.P. Co-operative Service Employees Regulations, 1975. He further submits that the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Regulation 84(1)(d) of the aforesaid Regulations which has not been exhausted by the petitioner.
9. It is submitted that Regulation 84 of the U.P. Co-operative Service Employees Regulations, 1975 provides for penalty. Regulation 84(1) (d) also provides the punishment of recovery from the pay or security deposit to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the Cooperative Society by the employee. It is further stated the aforesaid regulation also provides that if any employee is aggrieved by the order of the competent authority regarding recovery of loss from his pay under orders of the Committee of Management, the employee has an alternative remedy to challenge the validity of the aforesaid order before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies; U.P. under Rule 86 of the aforesaid Regulations. 1975.
10. The counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has been punished for stoppage of one increment by the Committee of Management which is also appealable before the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board by way of appeal under Regulation 86 and other punishment of pecuniary loss from the pay is also appealable before the Registrar, hence the punishment imposed on the petitioner is appealable before the Registrar and the Board as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of filing statutory appeal as provided in Service Regulations.
11. Regulations 84(i)(d) and 86 of the aforesaid Regulations, 1975 are as under:
84. Penalties.--(i) 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 offence or an offence under Section 103 of the Act or does anything prohibited by these regulations shall be liable to be punished by any one of the following penalties:
(d) recovery from pay or security deposit to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the Co-operative society by the employee's conduct.
86. Appeal.--Orders imposing penalty under Sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Clause (1) of Regulation No. 84 shall be appealable to the authorities as mentioned in Appendix-'D'.
12. From the regulation it is apparent that the relief of both the punishments awarded to the petitioner is provided by way of statutory appeal, which has not been exhausted by the petitioner.
13. It is the consistent view of Hon'ble Supreme Court that wherever an alternate remedy is available it should not be bye-passed and the petitioner has to approach this Court after availing alternate remedy. Reference in this regard may be made to Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and Anr. v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Anr. 2005 (6) AWC 6059 (SC) : (2005) 107 FLR 729.
14. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.