( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is preferred by the management of Nagarjuna Grameena Bank calling in question the validity of the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 3-4-1998 in writ Petition No. 8036 of 1992.

( 2 ) THE above Writ Petition was preferred by the respondent herein, who is the delinquent, assailing the validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the resultant disciplinary action taken by the management of the appellant-Bank dismissing him from service as a disciplinary measure. The respondent while working as Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier at anjanapalli Branch was issued with a charge Memo dated 30-12-1986, which reads as follows:"during your incumbency as Junior clerk-cum-Cashier at our Anjanapalli branch, you are reported to have committed several serious irregularities. Those which have come to light are detailed hereunder : (a) It is alleged that you had on 12th february, 1986 absconded with a cash of Rs. 1,15,000. 00 drawn from our Ajanapalli Branch intended for remittance into link Bank, State bank of Hyderabad, Miryalaguda. Thus, you had acted in a way highly detrimental to the interests of the bank. (b) It is alleged that on 12th February 1986, you had fraudulently obtained a link bank cheque bearing No. F/11 036900 and withdrew an amount of rs. 30,000/- by forging the signature of Branch Manager. Thus, you had acted in a way highly detrimental to the interests of the Bank. (c) It is reported that on 12th February 1986, you were negligent in not handing over the safe keys to the incharge Cashier and thereby acted in a way prejudicial to the interests of the Bank. 02. Thus, you had violated Regulation nos, 17, 19 and 30 of the Bank s Staff service Regulations, 1980. 03. You are, therefore, hereby required to submit to the undersigned a written statement in your defence, if any, in respect of the charges referred to above within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter. Please also show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against you. If no written statement is received from you within the stipulated period, it will be deemed that you have no explanation to offer in your defence and you would be proceeded against accordingly. 04. This charge-sheet is issued to you on the revelations so farmade and without prejudice to our issuing further charge-sheet (s) for any additional charges not covered or not included in this charge-sheet. "

( 3 ) THE delinquent submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 17-1-1987. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the delinquent proposed to hold a regular departmental enquiry against the respondent-delinquent and accordingly appointed Sri R. Rama Rao, Branch manager, Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, enukur Branch as Enquiry O fficer. The enquiry Officer held a regular departmental enquiry against the delinquent and submitted his report on 18-4-1991. As reflected in the report, the Enquiry Officer found the delinquent guilty of charges 1 and 3 and charge 2 in part. On receipt of the findings from the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the findings, concurred with the findings and forwarded a copy of the report along with his concurring opinion to the delinquent giving him an opportunity to have his say in the matter. In response to the second show cause notice, the delinquent submitted his explanation on 27-7-1991. The delinquent was also given a personal hearing by the disciplinary authority. On consideration of the reply of the delinquent and also his submissions during the personal hearing, the disciplinary authority not being satisfied with those explanations and submissions thought it appropriate to dismiss the delinquent from service as a disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority viz. , the Chairman of the Bank passed Proceedings in ref. No. DPC/112/402/91, dated 4-10-1991 dismissing the delinquent from the services of the Bank as a disciplinary measure. The dep