DILIP GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was working as a Clerk/Typist in the State Bank of India, has sought the quashing of the order dated 20th August, 1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority by which he was dismissed from service. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 7th December, 1999 by which his Appeal filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed.
(2.) THE records of the writ petition indicate that at the relevant time when the petitioner was working as a Clerk/Typist in the State Bank of India, Branch Office at Mumfordganj, Allahabad he was suspended on 17th August, 1995 in connection with misappropriation of the funds at the Mumfordganj Branch. Subsequently a charge-sheet dated 23rd March, 1996 was served upon the petitioner. This charge-sheet contained two charges which are as follows: "Charge No. 1. That on 25.3.1994, you entered into a conspiracy with some staff members at the branch with a view to defraud the Bank and accordingly a fake debit was raised in Branch Clearing General Account through Schedule No. 4 for Rs. 4,84,300.00 and amount was first credited to S.B. A/c No. 7547 fvg. Shri K.C. Miglani. Later on this amount was withdrawn in installments on 25.3.94 and 4.4.94 and out of the above amounts of Rs. 15,100.00 and Rs. 15,000.00 were misappropriated by you through credit in your current Account No. P-68 on the aforesaid dates. Charge No. 2. That on 26.9.94 you conspired with some staff members at the branch with a view to defraud the Bank and accordingly a fake debit of Rs. 1 lac was raised in Branch's S.B. Account and out of the above an amount of Rs. 30,000.00 was misappropriated by you through credit in your current Account." Sri P.R. Chakravarthi, Chief Manager was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. Sri S.K. Tiwari was appointed as the presenting officer which Sri M.S. Srivastava, Deputy General Secretary, SBI, Staff Association, Zonal Office, Varanasi defended the petitioner. The petitioner was required to file a reply to the aforesaid charges and he did submit a reply to the charge-sheet on 10th September, 1997. The Inquiry Officer found both the charges proved. Subsequently a notice dated 31st July, 1999 was sent by the Bank to the petitioner mentioning therein that the punishment of dismissal from service was intended to be given to the petitioner and he may submit a reply to the notice. The Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record imposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. The Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents sought for by the petitioner had not been supplied to him and, therefore, the inquiry stood vitiated; that some other persons who were responsible and who were also issued charge-sheets had been let off while the petitioner was punished; that there was no material to show that the petitioner was actually involved and so the finding of the Inquiry Officer is perverse and that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed by the Bank as the criminal case was pending.;