Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6th October 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13568 of 2002, the respondent-Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’) has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

2. The respondent-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the delinquent’) was at the relevant time serving in the Bank as Cashier-cum-Accounts Clerk. While serving as Cashier-cum-Accounts Clerk, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the delinquent in respect of an incidence of withdrawal of a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the savings bank account of one Sangita Rani. It was alleged that on 14th August 2000, the delinquent illegally withdrew the aforesaid sum of Rs.30,000/- from the savings bank account of the said Sangita Rani on the pretext that the mother of the said Sangita Rani had come to withdraw the amount. It was alleged that it was the delinquent who had signed on the reverse of the withdrawal slip. However, with a view to removing the evidence she scored off the signature and signed in the name of D. Sinha, the mother of the aforesaid Sangita Rani. After due enquiry, the imputation of charge was held to be proved. Under communication dated 28th November 2001, the delinquent was issued a notice to show cause why she should not be held to be guilty and for the guilt proved against her why she should not be dismissed from service. The said show cause notice was accompanied by the copy of the report of the enquiry officer. The delinquent refused to receive the said notice. The notice sent to her at her official address by registered post also returned undelivered. For the guilt established against the delinquent, by order dated 24th December 2001, she was ordered to be dismissed from service. Feeling aggrieved, the delinquent preferred appeal before the appellate authority. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 10th October 2002. Feeling aggrieved, the delinquent filed above C.W.J.C. No. 13568 of 2002 under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. The delinquent challenged the order of dismissal from service on the ground that the order was arbitrary and discriminatory; that the same was made in violation of principles of natural justice; the delinquent was not furnished the report of the enquiry officer; that she was denied the right to defence and to prove her innocence; she was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses; that the delinquent was singled out as several other officers were also involved in the transaction in question and that the finding of guilt recorded against the delinquent was based on conjectures and surmises.

4. The petition was contested by the Bank. According to the Bank, the disciplinary proceeding was conducted against the delinquent in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with the terms of settlement between the Bank and its employees. In course of preliminary enquiry the delinquent had accepted the factum of her withdrawing and receiving the sum of Rs.30,000/- from the account of the account-holder Sangita Rani. The Bank denied that the delinquent had not been given the proper opportunity of defence. The delinquent had been given opportunity. The delinquent had been given copy of the report of the enquiry officer. She was allowed to make representation against such report. She was also given opportunity to make representation against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. The delinquent, however, did not avail of that opportunity. She or her representative did not appear before the disciplinary authority for personal hearing although adequate time was granted to the delinquent and her representative for personal hearing.

5. The learned single Judge having considered the record and after hearing the parties has allowed the writ petition. The learned single Judge has held that a composite show cause notice accepting the finding of guilt and proposed punishment of dismissal was c