The petitioner is employed as a Senior Assistant in the State Bank of India, 1st respondent herein. Initially, a memo, dated 30.08.2002 was served upon him, whereunder, two charges were framed. This was followed by another memo, dated 27.03.2003, in which, the charges contained in the memo, dated 03.08.2002, were repeated and a few more charges were incorporated. The petitioner was required to submit explanation, as to why suitable disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. After the petitioner submitted his explanation, the 1st respondent appointed an enquiry officer. A detailed enquiry was conducted, and the enquiry officer submitted a report, dated 10.01.2004, holding that the charges a, b(i)&(ii), c1(ii) and f(ii) are proved. On a consideration of the report of the enquiry officer, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 21.04.2004. Apart from accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, the 3rd respondent stated that he holds the charge in c(2)(i) as proved. Thereafter, it is stated that he tentatively proposes to inflict the punishment of dismissal, upon the petitioner.

2. The petitioner submitted his explanation and appeared at the personal hearing held on 05.07.2004. The 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 29.07.2004, confirming the proposed punishment of dismissal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appellate authority passed an order, dated 20.10.2005, confirming the findings recorded against the petitioner, but converting the order of dismissal into the one of removal from service. The petitioner challenges the respective orders passed by respondents 3 and 2.

3. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent committed procedural lapses, inasmuch as a finding, contrary to the report of the enquiry officer, was recorded, even at the stage of show cause notice, and that the order of dismissal from service does not contain any reasons, worth their name. Certain other grounds are also urged.

4. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioner has resorted to several acts of grave misconduct, causing loss of reputation and efficiency, to the Bank. It is stated that the procedure prescribed by law was meticulously followed at every stage and the proceedings did not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity.

5. Sri T. Surya Karan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges framed against the petitioner are untenable and trivial in nature. He contends that totally unrelated issues, which are mostly personal to the petitioner, were raked up and disciplinary proceedings were initiated, though the Bank did not suffer anything, be it, in terms of money or efficiency. He contends that the 3rd respondent has straight away recorded a finding contrary to the report of the enquiry officer, even before the petitioner submitted an explanation. It is his case that the 3rd respondent reduced the submission of explanation to the 2nd show cause notice and the personal hearing, to an empty formality, and that the order of dismissal cannot be sustained in law.

6. Dr.Padmavathi, learned standing counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the charges leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature and that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity at every stage of the proceedings. She further submits that the fact that the 3rd respondent has applied his mind to every facet of the matter, is evident from the show cause notice, and the final order was passed fully in conformity with the same. She contends that the findings or facts mentioned in the show cause notice were provisional in nature and they cannot be treated as final. She also contends that even if there was any minor lapse on the part of the 3rd respondent, the same was taken ca