JUDGMENT (R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.)

Theses appeals by special leave are filed by a defendant-employer (State Bank of India) against the judgment dated 11.12.2003 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No.4184 of 2002.

2. A charge-sheet dated 28.4.1994 was issued by the Appellant Bank to the respondent alleging that when he was posted as the Branch Manager of appellants Kalanwali Branch, Sirsa, Haryana, he had received cash payments tendered by two customers of the Bank, for being credited to their loan accounts, and temporarily misappropriated such amounts and had belatedly deposited them to the borrowers accounts (after about five months in one case and two and half months in another). The said acts amounted to a misconduct, violative of Rule 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (Service Rules for short). An enquiry was held in regard to the said charge. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 11.11.1994 holding that the charge was proved. The Disciplinary Authority furnished a copy of the said report to the respondent and gave him an opportunity to show cause in the matter.

3. Rule 68(3) of the Service Rules required, where the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that a major penalty is to be imposed, and where he was lower in rank to the Appointing Authority (in respect of the category of officers to which the delinquent officer belonged), that he should submit to the Appointing Authority, the records of the enquiry together with his recommendations regarding the penalty that may be imposed, and the Appointing Authority should make the order imposing the penalty, which in his opinion was appropriate. In view of the above rule, the Disciplinary Authority after considering the inquiry records and the representation of the respondent, made a recommendation on 2.5.1995 to the Appointing Authority to impose the penalty of removal from service on the respondent. The Appointing Authority considered the entire material and concurred with the recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority and made an order dated 3.5.1995 imposing the penalty of removal from service, which was communicated to the Respondent by letter dated 30.6.1995 of the Disciplinary Authority.

4. The appeal and Revision (Review) filed by the Respondent were dismissed on 29.11.1995 and 27.11.1996. The respondent thereafter filed Civil Suit No.158 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jind, for a declaration that the order of removal dated 30.6.1995 as also the orders of the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority were arbitrary and illegal. He also prayed that the said orders be set aside with a direction to take him back into service with all consequential benefits. The suit was resisted by the appellant-bank. After trial, the suit was decreed on 19.4.2003.

5. The Trial Court found that there was no violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry and the order holding the respondent guilty of misconduct was proper. The trial court however found that the Disciplinary Authority, by his earlier note dated 18.1.1995, had recommended imposition of the penalty of reduction of pay of respondent by four stages in his time scale and the Appointing Authority had agreed with the said recommendation on 18.1.1995. According to the trail court, the said order was a final order of punishment by the Appointing Authority; and the Appointing Authority had thereafter sought the advice of the Banks Chief Vigilance Officer, and acting on such advice, had changed his earlier decision and imposed a higher punishment by way of removal from service, by order dated 3.5.1995 (communicated on 30.6.1995). The trial court was of the view that the second order imposing penalty was passed by the Appointing Authority "on extraneous reasons after taking advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer", and that rendered the order of removal illegal, null and void. The trial court therefore set aside the order of removal dated 30.6.1