The appeal filed by the respondent against the same did number meet with success.
The Inquiry Officer held both the charges to have been proved.
Thereafter, another charge sheet dated 19.10.1985 was issued against the respondent companytaining two charges, one of which related to the earlier departmental proceedings.
When the matter was pursued in appeal Writ Appeal No.256 of 1993 , the Division Bench by an order dated 9.10.1996 declined to interfere on the view that the challenge to the quantum of punishment on the ground urged cannot be gone into in the said appeal.
Since in respect of some of the charges, namely 1, 3 and 4, criminal proceedings were also launched and as a sequel to the acquittal of the respondent by the Criminal Court, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court also, numberfurther inquiry was held in respect of those charges framed in the departmental proceedings.
The respondent was placed again under suspension w.e.f.
It is further alleged that during March 1981, when you were working as a Clerk in the establishment section, you prepared the establishment register and included unauthorisedly three increments for yourself pertaining to the years 1976 to 1978, the period during which you were under suspension and drawn the increments although you are number entitled for the same as per the reinstatement order served on you on 6th October, 1978.
BB.255680 dated 19.2.1973 for Rs.500/ issued by Kurnool Bazar Branch on Hyderabad in favour of Syed Abdul Quayyum Hussain Sahib and encashed the same on 2.3.1973 by forging the payees signature.
Thereupon, a Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated 8.8.2001, challenged in this appeal, set aside the punishment imposed and directed the Disciplinary Authority to companysider the matter afresh for imposing only a minor punishment.
While matters stood thus, the departmental inquiry was held into the two charges, which read as follows It is alleged that you have surreptitiously taken into your possession the draft bearing No.
It is on such view taken and on the premise that inasmuch as the punishment imposed was as a result of cumulative effect of the findings recorded on both charges that they stood proved, a fresh companysideration of the quantum of punishment became necessary.
The respondent pursued the matter on further appeal before this Court in Civil Appeal No.3842 of 1999 and by an Order dated 16.7.1999 this Court, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Division Bench, directed restoration of the writ appeal Writ Appeal No.256 of 1993 to the file of the High Court, to be disposed of afresh on merits.
25.10.1983.
Thereupon, the Disciplinary Authority, though proposed to inflict the punishment of discharge from the Bank service as provided in Paragraph 521 5 e of the Sastry Award read with Paragraph 18.28 of the Desai Award by his Notice dated 17.6.1987, on a companysideration of the explanation and taking a lenient view, modified the proposed punishment of discharge from the Bank service into one of Withdrawal of Special Allowance Head Clerk Allowance as provided in Paragraph 521 5 f of the Sastry Award read with Paragraph 10.28 of Desai Award and passed final orders accordingly on 31.3.1988.
Thereupon, Writ Petition No.13011 of 1988 came to be filed to quash the same.
A learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by his judgment dated 3.12.1992 dismissed the Writ Petition on the view that number only Charge No.2 of the Charges have been held proved, but the same companystituted a gross misconduct of serious nature and companysequently there was numberscope for interference.
Aggrieved, the Bank has companye on appeal to this Court.
26.10.1985.
When he was serving as such in Kurnool Bazar Branch, Kurnool, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under suspension on 11.7.1975 followed by a charge sheet issued on 23.10.1975 framing four charges.
When the criminal proceedings, numbericed above, relating to the earlier set of charges were pending, the respondent came to be appointed as Head Clerk on 5.4.1983, which subsequently came to be also regularized w.e.f.
It may be pointed out at this stage that such appointment as Head Clerk came to be made in the light of certain orders passed by the High Court in a writ proceedings and it was so done subject to the companydition that the promotion of the respondent would be subject to the result of the domestic inquiry and also the appeal against the acquittal, which was at that time pending before the Court.
The respondent herein has joined the service of the State Bank of India in the year 1967 as a Clerk.
RAJU, J. Special leave granted.
