L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was initially appointed as clerk-cum-Typist in the State Bank of India, in the year 1973 and the same was confirmed in 1974. He was promoted as Trainee Officer on 1-8-1980 and confirmed in that post two years thereafter. On 1-8-1986, he was promoted as Manager Scale II and was posted at Payakaraopet Branch, visakhapatnam District.

( 2 ) WHILE the petitioner was working at Payakaraopet branch, he was placed under suspension, through orders dated 31-7-1992, in contemplation of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 8^9-1993 wherein two charges were framed which related to the alleged irregularities in advancing certain loans in his capacity as Manager of the payakaraopet branch. While Charge No. 1 was split into 8 allegations dealing with various aspects of the irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner in advancing loans, under Charge No. 2, he was alleged to have accepted illegal gratification from the borrowers. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 27-10-1993 denying the charges levelled against him.

( 3 ) AN Enquiry Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority to conduct enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, in turn, submitted his report dated 25-7-1996 holding that Charge No. 1 levelled against the petitioner is proved and that Charge no. 2 is not proved.

( 4 ) ACCEPTING the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority forwarded the report of the Enquiry Officer, through letter dated 10-9-1996, requiring the petitioner to make submissions about the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 18-10-1996. The disciplinary authority, on consideration of the representation dated 18-10-1996 of the petitioner vis-a-vis the findings of the Enquiry Officer, through his proceedings dated 6-3-1997, recommended to the appointing authority to impose penalty of removal from service on the petitioner. Accepting the recommendations of the disciplinary authority, the appointing authority passed orders dated 10-3-1997 directing removal of the petitioner from service.

( 5 ) THE petitioner availed the remedy of appeal provided for under the State Bank of india Officers Service Rules (for short the rules ). The appellate authority, the 3rd respondent herein, rejected the appeal through orders dated 29-1-1998. Hence, the present writ petition.

( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the irregularities alleged against him were trivial in nature and were on account of the pressure of work and non-co-operation of the Field Officer. The petitioner alleges that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated inasmuch as he was not furnished the report in the preliminary enquiry or the statement of witnesses that have been recorded before the issuance of charge-sheet. It is also alleged that the Enquiry Officer held that charge No. 2, which contains very serious imputations was not proved and once that be so, the punishment imposed upon him is too harsh and disproportionate. It is the further complaint of the petitioner that the appellate authority did not apply its mind and has not at all considered the various grounds raised before him and that it is a case of non-application of mind.

( 7 ) THE respondents filed a counter-affidavit narrating the circumstances, whichled to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. They justified the non-furnishing of the preliminary report and certain other documents related thereto, on several grounds. So far as the contention of the petitioner, as regards the manner in which the appointing authority and the appellate authority passed orders, is concerned, the respondents submit that having regard to the contents of Charge No. 1, the punishment imposed against the petitioner cannot be said to be too harsh and disproportionate.

( 8 ) THE writ petition was heard on earlier occasio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document