- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY order dated 8th September. 2000 (Annexure -13) issued by the Assistant General Manager (IV) -cum -Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner who was the clerk -cum -cashier in the State Bank of India attached at Jhumari Telaiya Branch, has been dismissed from service. His appeal preferred before the respondent No.2 -the Deputy General Manager. State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ranchi, has also been rejected by the order dated 14th May. 2002. These two orders are under challenge by the petitioner in this writ application. He also seeks reinstatement in service pursuant to the quashing of the impugned orders. The petitioner while he was posted as clerk -cum -cashier at the relevant point of time in the year 1985 in Sainik School Branch of State Bank of India at Telaiya, district -Koderma, was served with a charge -sheet vide Annexure -2 alleging six different charges. (1) On 15th October. 1985 he altered the State Bank of India withdrawal form for Rs. 100/ - pertaining to savings bank A/c No. SC/143 of Smt. Mangala Gouri Limbu to Rs. 2.100/ - and payment was fraudulently obtained by him as a recipient of the amount under his signature on the reverse of the instrument. Mrs. Limbu on being contacted, had made a complain in that respect on 15th October, 1985. (2) On 14th July, 1985 while working at the same branch, he withdrew an amount of Rs. 1.000/ - on a blank withdrawal form submitted by Mrs. Limbu with a request to fill up the same for withdrawal of Rs. 100/ - in a fraudulent manner and deposited an amount of Rs. 100/ -only to the recurring deposit account of Mrs. Limbu and also credit entry of Rs. 100 1was made in the recurring deposit account pass -book of Mrs. Limbu. (3) On 1st October, 1985 one Mr. Lakho Gope, a saving bank account holder, handed over a sum of Rs. 500/ -to be deposited in his savings bank account No. 595 but the amount was not deposited till 24th October. 1985 and instead, it was deposited on 25th October, 1985, while entry was made in the passbook of Mr. Gape on 1st October, 1985 under his authentication. The said amount was unauthorizedly withheld for 25 days. (4) On 8th October, 1985 an amount of Rs. 2,500/ - was handed over to the petitioner by one Shri Banshidhar Singh requesting him to deposit the amount in his savings bank account No. 1192 at the branch which was entered in the passbook of the account holder under his authentication, but was not reflected in the bank's books. (5) On 7th August, 1985 and 8th September, 1985, a sum of Rs. 200/ - and Rs. 100/ - respectively was shown in the deposit column of recurring deposit accounts - passbook in the name of Mrs. M. B. Susheelamma in the same branch under his authentication, but was actually deposited on 28th October, 1985 by him. (6) On 21st August, 1985 a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - was shown deposited in the R.D. A/c No. 213 of Shri Menon P. Mohan in the same branch under his authentication, but the amount was actually deposited in the account on 31st October, 1985 unauthorizedly after 69 days. The instant charge -sheet was issued on 29th July, 1986.
(3.) THE petitioner submitted his reply to the charge -sheet on 13th September, 1996. The inquiry report was submitted on 25th November, 1989 holding all the charges established against the petitioner. Thereafter, the order of dismissal was passed on 12th July, 1990 by the Disciplinary Authority. On 5th September, 1990, he preferred an appeal and the Appellate, Authority, by order dated 19th September, 1991 (Annexure -4), set aside the order of dismissal and directed holding of a fresh inquiry after adducing the evidence and witnesses. On 21st September, 1991, fresh inquiry was initiated but on the same charges. The inquiry proceeded in which the petitioner participated and by Annexure -6 dated 17th October, 1997, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report. The, Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the first four charges out of six charges, as indicated herein above. On 25th November, 1997, the petitioner was asked to represent by serving him a copy of the inquiry report. On 9th December, 1997 vide Annexure - 7 the petitioner represented before the Disciplinary Authority with a request to drop the proceedings against him with a detailed reply. However, vide Annexure -8 dated 22nd October, 1999 the Disciplinary Authority passed a speaking order giving reasons for differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer in respect of the first four charges while concurring with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge Nos. 5 and 6. The petitioner was asked to be physically present on 28th October, 1999 to offer his reply to the said second show -cause.;