TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a class IV employee in the Union Bank of India in the year 1972. On the basis of the recommendation oi the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner was promoted to the post of a clerk-cum-cashier in the year 1981 and in the year 1985 was promoted to the post of a Head Cashier. In the year 1989, the petitioner was posted at Bhawaniganj branch in district Jaunpur.
(2.) On November 22, 1997, the petitioner was placed under suspension and subsequently a departmental charge-sheet dated January 10, 1998 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply dated March 25, 1998. The disciplinary authority by an order dated October 29, 1998 held that the reply filed by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and directed that the enquiry against the petitioner would be conducted by Sri P.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Deputy Manager (Personnel) Regional Office, Varanasi, who would also be the disciplinary authority for the purpose of the enquiry.
(3.) The enquiry proceedings was conducted by the officer concerned, who gave full opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and further complied with the principles of natural justice. It transpires that after the recording of the evidence, the petitioner also filed his written arguments before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report. The enquiry officer found that the charges were proved against the petitioner. A copy of the enquiry report vide memo dated August 9, 1999 was duly supplied to the petitioner calling upon him to appear for a personal hearing on the proposed punishment. The petitioner appeared and placed his objections. After the conclusion of the hearing but before the disciplinary authority could pass the order of penalty, Sri Bhaskar Reddy, the disciplinary authority was transferred from the Regional Office, Varanasi to the office of the General Manager, Chennai. Sri Bhaskar Reddy, issued an order dated August 31, 1999 from Chennai, imposing a penalty of dismissal from the service and further held that the petitioner would not be allowed any allowance except the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.;