Swatanter Kumar, C.J.

1. On the statement of one Mr. Anand P. Patankar, on 6th May, 2005, Dadar Police Station registered F.I.R. No. 289 of 2005 under Section 360 of the Indian Penal Code. It was recorded that he was a retired employee, and had taken a debit card of the Standard Chartered Bank, Shivaji Park, Dadar, and was using the said card. After the expiry of the card, he received a letter from the bank that they are going to send another card. Somewhere on 23rd August, 2005, he received a letter along with Personal Identification Number (PIN) for the same card; and on 3rd September, 2005, as he needed money, he gave his daughter a cheque of Rs.5,000/- for withdrawing. In his statement, there are unauthorised withdrawals shown for different amounts, on 27th August, 2005, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/-; on 28th August, 2005, Rs.25,000/-; on 29th August, 2005, Rs.25,000/-; and on 30th August, 2005, Rs.25,000/-, totaling a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which had been withdrawn from the bank's ATM. According to him, the card was stolen, which was lying on the dining table, and the amounts have been withdrawn without his permission and by some person. After conducting investigations, the property is said to be stolen. The charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner.

2.On 24th April, 2006, the petitioner was arrested for commission of the said offence under Section 380 of IPC and was granted bail.

3. The petitioner is employed with the Standard Chartered Bank since 15th February, 1988, and was working at Juhu Branch as a Teller. According to the petitioner, the informant is a long- standing friend, and on 26th August, 2005, she invited the informant to join her and family members for dinner at Flora Fountain. It was then agreed that on her way to Flora Fountain, the petitioner would pick the informant from his residence. Accordingly, the petitioner, her husband and two children dropped in at the informant's house on their way to the dinner venue. The daughter of the informant, Ms. Pinaz Patankar, was also working in the Juhu Branch of the respondent-Bank as Line Manager, and she could persuade her father to withdraw the criminal case against the petitioner if the petitioner tendered her resignation from the bank. According to the petitioner, she was not involved in the alleged unauthorised withdrawals of money. The respondent- Bank instructed the petitioner to appear before a Disciplinary Committee on 8th May, 2006 at its office at M.G. Road, Mumbai. In the said meting, the threats of dismissal from service were given to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not bother by the threats given to her, and did not tender her resignation.

4. The petitioner then received a letter dated 17th May, 2006 from the respondent-Bank informing the petitioner that the informant had also informed the bank about the alleged theft of the card and unauthorised withdrawals and the involvement of the petitioner in the police case. On the basis of the above, respondent No.1 called upon the petitioner to show cause why her services should not be terminated for loss of confidence vide their letter dated 17th May, 2006. The said letter is Exhibit 'A' to the writ petition. Vide her letter dated 30th May, 2006, the petitioner brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 that some of the enclosures reported to have been sent along with its letter dated 17th May, 2006 had not been received, and requested that complete documents may be given to her. Respondent No. 1, thereupon, furnished the documents to the notice in June, 2006; and the petitioner, as per her reply to the show-cause notice, gave the full facts, including that the show-cause notice was vague and the arrest of the petitioner by the police does not, ipso facto, establish her guilt and respondent No. 1 had no authority to terminate her services. She also informed the bank that continuation of departmental proceedings, when