S. MURALIDHAR, J.

( 1 ) WRIT Petition (C) No. 154 of 2000 by Shri K. Raj Arora and Writ Petition (C) No. 1302 of 2000 by Shri C. D. Gupta involve similar questions of law and have been heard together. Both petitioners, erstwhile employees of the Respondent no. 1 Bank, were found guilty of certain charges of misconduct leading to their dismissal from service. They challenge their dismissal essentially on grounds of procedure and in the alternative pray for any lesser punishment. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the orders of dismissal. The detailed reasons are set out below. Facts of Shri Arora's case

( 2 ) TO begin with, the facts of each of the two cases may be noticed. Shri k. Raj Arora commenced his employment with Respondent No. 1 State Bank of India as a clerk on 24. 12. 1960. Between October 1980 to November 1982 he was the branch Manager at the Sarai Khawaja branch, Faridabad. It is stated that on receipt of a special inspection report dated 1. 5. 1986 and a preliminary investigation report dated 28. 5. 1986, departmental action was contemplated against him in respect of certain irregularities leading to a detailed investigation which was concluded on 4. 7. 1987. Shri Arora was suspended from service on 19. 8. 1987. The Respondent No. 1 bank sought an explanation from Shri arora on 9. 4. 1988 and a further explanation on 2. 12. 1988. Shri Arora submitted his reply on 5. 3. 1989. Since the irregularities committed involved a vigilance angle, a reference was made to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) through the central office of the bank, on 5. 12. 1989. Thereafter on 3. 1. 1990 the central office sought certain clarifications from the local head office on 31. 7. 1990. A further explanation was sought from Shri Arora, to which he replied on 20. 8. 1990. On receipt of the advice from the CVC on 31. 7. 1991, Shri arora was served with a charge sheet on 17. 12. 1991. As many as nine articles of charge were framed in respect of the various transactions involving certain customers of the bank during the period during Shri Arora was the Branch manager at the Sarai Khawaja branch of the Respondent No. 1 in Faridabad.

( 3 ) THE Inquiry Officer submitted a detailed report on 29. 9. 1993 holding three charges fully proved, two charges partly proved and four charges as not proved. The Inquiry Officer's Report was served on Shri Arora by a letter dated 16. 2. 1994 written to him by the Chief General Manager, who was also the disciplinary Authority. Shri Arora was permitted to make a representation in respect of the Report of the Inquiry Officer within 15 days. Shri Arora did not reply to this letter immediately. Meanwhile, on 2. 4. 1994 the Disciplinary authority sent a further letter informing Shri Arora that after considering the records pertaining to the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority tentatively differed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as regards the charges held not to be proved and was of the view that these charges were also proved. Enclosed to this letter was a detailed tabular statement setting out the reasons for the Disciplinary Authority differing with the Inquiry Officer charge-wise. Shri Arora was informed that he could make a representation within 15 days of the receipt of the letter. Shri Arora gave his representation thereto on 11. 4. 1994.

( 4 ) THE Disciplinary Authority, by a detailed order dated 20. 12. 1994 held shri Arora guilty of all the charges and observed that the Respondent No. 1 bank was likely to suffer a loss of over Rs. 70 lakhs with interest on account of the acts of misconduct committed by the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of dismissal in terms of Rule 49 (h) State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules corresponding to Rule 67 (h) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules ('rules' ). Meanwhile, Shri Arora filed Writ petition (C) No. 4997 of 1994 in this Court challenging the charge sheet and enquiry proceedin