The petitioner, “an Officer employee” of the respondent – “bank”, having been dismissed from service and the appeal filed their-against having also been dismissed, has filed this writ petition.

2. The brief facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that, the petitioner joined service of the bank in the cadre of JMGS-I on 04.02.1985. When he was working as an Assistant Manager at the Cuddapah branch, a show cause notice dated 28.11.2000, based on the reports submitted in respect of SKC accounts was issued. The petitioner denied the allegations by submitting a reply dated 25.01.2001. A charge sheet dated 08.02.2001 under Regulation 6 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short ‘Regulation’), was issued. Petitioner denied the charge by submitting a reply dated 22.02.2001. An Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Deputy General Manager by an order dated 05.03.2001. Two witnesses were examined by the bank. The Inquiry Officer submitted report dated 16.10.2001, a copy of which was furnished to the petitioner, along with a show cause notice dated 23.10.2001. The petitioner has submitted reply on 03.11.2001, pointing out the deficiencies on the part of the Inquiry Officer and the findings being without the support of any material evidence and contending that the report is arbitrary and perverse. The objection was overruled, the petitioner has held guilty and penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on 23.11.2001. An appeal filed was dismissed.

3. The respondent has filed statement of objections to the writ petition.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned Counsel for the respondent. Perused the proceedings/files relating to the passing of the impugned orders.

5. The main contentions urged by Sri. P.S. Rajagopal are that;

(i) The bank has withheld from the inquiry two cited and material witnesses i.e., D. Subbaramaiah and Smt. Poluri Nagamma and has relied upon MEX 45 and MEX 46, the alleged statements of the said persons, which course of action is illegal. That MEX 45 and MEX 46 have not been proved in view of the non examination of the persons concerned and that, the reliance placed on the said documents to punish the petitioner is highly illegal. It was contended that, the case is one of no evidence.

(ii) That no opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce defence witnesses and that there is violation of Regulation 6(17) of the Regulations, in that, the Inquiry Officer did not generally question the petitioner on the incriminating circumstances i.e., in the manner required and recognized under law, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.

(iii) That the Disciplinary Authority has failed to consider the objections submitted to the inquiry report and that the Disciplinary Authority has mechanically passed an order without any application of mind and consideration of the record.

(iv) That the order of penalty has been issued by an incompetent authority, in that, punishment order was passed by the Asst. General Manager, whereas the decision was taken to conduct the inquiry by the Deputy General Manager, who had decided to impose stiff punishment and thus there was bias on the part of the Asst. General Manager.

(v) That the Appellate Authority, without application of mind and consideration of the record has mechanically dismissed the appeal.

(vi) The disciplinary proceedings being vitiated, the order passed punishing the petitioner is wholly illegal.

(vii) The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have only made it appear that the orders are lawful in nature, the fact being otherwise, as has become apparent upon the files being produced pursuant to the order of the Court.

(viii) That, the impugned orders suffer from procedural impropriety, bias, irrationality and are illegal.

6. Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned counsel for the respond