ORDER

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of order dated 4th April 2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the General Manager (D & PB), the Appointing Authority, of the State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna, whereby on the basis of findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority, penalty of removal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner under the provisions of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as the Service Rules). The petitioner has also assailed the validity and correctness of the appellate order dated 3rd October 2002 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India (in short Bank) as also the order dated 21.02.2003 (Annexure-9), passed by the Reviewing Committee of the Bank whereby the order passed by the appellate authority has been affirmed.

3. The relevant facts are not under much dispute. While the petitioner was posted as Assistant Branch Manager at Sumerganj Branch of the respondent Bank in the district of Vaishali, he was put under suspension by order dated 18.05.1998 (Annexure-1) issued by the Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, on the ground of committing several financial irregularities of serious nature. Thereafter, in terms of Rule 68(1) (i) of the Service Rules, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Memorandum of charge-sheet dated 16th September 1999 (Annexure-2) was served upon the petitioner enclosing therein the articles of charges, at Annexure-1, statement of allegations against the petitioner, at Annexure-II, and list of documents on which charges were based at Annexure-III. The petitioner was called upon to submit his written statement of defence in terms of Rule 68(2) (iii) of the Service Rules within fifteen days. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed his written statement of defence denying articles of charges framed against him.

4. In view of denial of charges by the petitioner, one Shri B.C. Bhowmick, Assistant General Manager (Domestic Enquiry) was appointed as Inquiring Authority under the provisions of the Service Rules. During the course of enquiry material exhibits were produced and witnesses were examined by both sides. There is no allegation that the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the disciplinary proceeding or to produce materials in support of his defence. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted on 28.09.2000. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner by letter dated 03.11.2000 (Annexure- 5) asking him to file his second show cause. Finally, after considering the materials including the materials produced by the petitioner, the respondent General Manager, being the appointing authority, on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned final order dated 4th April, 2001 (Annexure-6) imposing penalty of removal from service against the petitioner and it was directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as such.

5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment dated 4th April, 2001 (Annexure-6), preferred appeal before the appellate authority under the provisions of the Service Rules, which has been disposed of by the impugned reasoned and speaking appellate order dated 3rd April, 2002 (Annexure-8) by the respondent Chief General Manager of the respondent Bank, being the appellate authority. The petitioner, not being satisfied with the impugned appellate order, preferred review application under the provisions of the Service Rules, which has also been rejected by the impugned reasoned and speaking order dated 21.02.2003 (Annexure-9) passed by the Reviewing Committee of the Bank.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned orders, has raised three points; firstly that the findings recorded by the ap