Ramesh Kr.Datta, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Central Bank of India.

2. The petitioner has come for quashing the enquiry report dated 10.1.1995 by which the two charges leveled against the petitioner have been found to have been proved and partially proved as also for quashing the order of punishment dated 24.4.1995 passed by the disciplinary authority, respondent No. 4, the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Patna by which the petitioner has been given the punishment for discharge from service with regard to charge No. 1 and stoppage of two increments in respect of charge No. 2 and further for quashing the order dated 20.9.1995 passed by respondent No. 3, the Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, Patna passed in appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of discharge from service, which appeal was rejected by the appellate authority.

3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner while functioning as Head Cashier-cum-Clerk in Gyaspur Branch of the respondent Bank was issued a charge- sheet that the petitioner abusing his official position as the receiving clerk committed irregularities with mala fide intention in respect of the account holders cash deposit: (i) Rs. 600/- on 25.6.1993 in HSS Account No. 1489 of Sri Ganauri Choudhary, and (ii) Rs. 2,800/- on 16.8.1993 in HSS Account No. 1834 of Sri Ram Suresh Rai, by not making cash deposit entries in the Books of the Branch and not depositing the receipted cash in the Bank and misled the account holders by making cash deposit entry of Rs. 600/ on 25.6.1993 in the Pass Book of HSS Account No. 1489; when the Bank asked the petitioner to explain such acts and issued suspension memo he did not submit his explanation within the stipulated time but he replied on 20.10.1993 that he had returned the said cash deposits to the concerned account holders. The second charge against the petitioner was that he committed temporary misappropriation of cash deposit of. Rs. 1,500/- of HSS Account No. 1209 of Sri Megh Nath Choudhary on 30.6.1992.

4. With regard to charge No. 1 the enquiry officer in his report held that notwithstanding the non-appearance of the complainants in the proceedings the fact remains that the petitioner has admitted in his statement/explanation dated 20.10.1993 that he accepted cash from the account holders, issued counterfoils for cash receipts and made entries in the pass book also; whereas such cash receipts were not accounted for in the Bank. Subsequently he also accepted that the cash amounts were returned to the complainants whose written statements were submitted by the petitioner alongwith his said explanation. On the basis of the admission made by the petitioner as also the other documentary evidences brought on the record, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charge No. 1 was conclusively proved. With regard to charge No. 2 the finding recorded was that the same was partly proved. The disciplinary authority subsequently by order dated 24.4.1995 accepting the findings of the enquiry officer and after following the due procedure awarded the punishment of discharge from service with respect to charge No. 1 and stoppage of two increments with respect to charge No. 2.

5. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order of the disciplinary authority by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. The said appeal was confined by the petitioner only with respect to charge No. 1 and he did not challenge the findings and punishment given with respect to charge No. 2. The appellate authority, however, rejected his appeal by the impugned order dated 20.9.1995. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are not sustainable as the account holders on whose complaints the proceedings having been initiated have not bee