Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner was a bank employee working in the State Bank of India. While he was working as Accountant in Murarai Branch he was charge-sheeted on diverse charges involving mis-appropriation of funds of the bank. There had been a detailed enquiry held by the enquiry officer. Before the enquiry officer the writ petitioner admitted his guilt. The relevant extract of the admission is quoted below. "With due respect I am to state that after long treatment CMRI Calcutta I became patient of mental depression of which I had to be hospitalised for about 11 months for pro-long treatment. This fact is also known to Head Office. Due to some family problems and subsequently non- availability of proper treatment at Murarai, I have committed-some irregularities while performing my duties as Accountant unintentionally for which act I am repented and regret. I confess all the charges framed against me unconditionally. Sir, in view of my confession as noted above I pray to your good self to consider my lapses sympathetically affording me once more chance to rectify myself so that I could survive with my distressed family members including my aged widow ailing mother. In this context I also assured you that in future there will be no recurrence of any such unfair activities which may jeopardise Bank's interest and prestige." The enquiry officer found the writ petitioner guilty the charges. The report of the enquiry officer has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition, appearing at pages 35-39 thereof. On the basis of the said enquiry report the disciplinary authority by its order dated 17th July, 1995 awarded punishment of removal of service to the writ petitioner . The order of the disciplinary authority was duly appealed. The appellate authority upheld the order of punishment. Hence, this writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner has as S.A.I.L. ed the order of punishment on two fold grounds: (i) Even if there is any admission which has to be taken as a whole the respondent authority cannot rely on a portion of the same to inflict punishment. (ii) Even in the case of admission in accordance with the relevant rules of the bank the enquiry officer was to record his finding on each of the charges which was not done in the instant case. On the first issue, learned Counsel has relied on two Apex Court decisions reported in AIR 1974 SC, Page 388 (Dadarao v. The State of Maharashtra) and AIR 1979 SC, Page 154 (Haji C.H. Mohammad Koya v. T.K.S.M.A. Muthukoya) .
(3.) Relying on the said two Apex Court decisions, the learned counsel, submitted that an admission if relied on has to be taken as a whole, the respondent authority is not entitled to extract a portion of the said admission which would suit their convenience.;