JUDGMENT

P. Sam Koshy, J. - The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the orders passed by respondent No. 3 the Regional Manager cum Disciplinary authority Annexure P-5 whereby the services of the petitioner stood terminated. The order also under challenge is the order passed by the Departmental appellate authority respondent No. 2 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner stood rejected vide Annexure P-7 dated 29.03.1995.

2. The brief facts of the case relevant for adjudication of the present dispute is that the original petitioner Shri S. L. Choudhary was working as a Branch Manager at the Branch office of the respondent at Balrampur Branch. While working there as a Branch Manager the officer was served with a charge sheet on 30.09.1992 in respect of certain lapses committed by him during his tenure as a Branch Manager. One Shri N. K. Thawait, Deputy Chief Officer, Regional Office Shahdol was appointed as an enquiring authority to conduct the enquiry proceedings. The departmental enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted on 25.09.1993. Copy of the enquiry report along with show cause notice was served upon the delinquent on 01.12.1993. The delinquent immediately thereafter submitted his detailed submission to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority thereafter vide order dated 06.07.1994 issued the order of termination from service. The petitioner immediately thereafter preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 who in turn vide order Annexure P-7 dated 29.03.1995 affirming the order of termination dismissed the appeal. It is these two orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority which is under challenge in this petition. During the pendency of the present writ petition the original petitioner Shri S. L. Choudhary had expired and since then the present petitioner has got herself substituted in the petition and is pursuing the matter.

3. The contention of the petitioner assailing the two orders is that the disciplinary authority has not properly appreciated the evidence which has been led by the petitioner. The, findings of the enquiry officer is a perverse finding. At the same time, it is also contended by the petitioner that the disciplinary authority also have wrongly appreciated the evidence led by the management, in as much as it failed to appreciate the fact that a few of the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and as such the charge levelled against the petitioner has not been conclusive proof and in the absence of a conclusive evidence the finding of the disciplinary authority is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside/quashed. It was further the contention of the petitioner that the order of the appellate authority Annexure P-7 dated 29.03.1995 is a non speaking order and same is therefore liable to be set aside. That the appellate authority has also not given sufficient reasons while deciding the appeal and in the absence of proper reasoning, the order of appellate authority is liable to be quashed. That disciplinary authority also is not properly appreciated the defence statement that petitioner had submitted in response to the explanation/show cause issued by the management served upon the officer along with a copy of enquiry report.

4. Per contra, opposing the petition Shri B. D. Guru, counsel for respondent referred to the enquiry proceedings and submitted that it is a case where the respondent Bank had conducted a thorough enquiry so far as the allegations/ charges that were levelled against the petitioner. That based on the documentary evidence which has been brought on record the enquiry officer had submitted his report. That the disciplinary authority had also thoroughly scrutinized the evidence that have been adduced by either side and only after careful consideration of the submissions submitted on either side a decision was taken. Thus, the finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority and which has als