Indira Shah, J.

1. The legality and validity of dismissal order dated 10.10.2008 passed by the Assistant General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, against the petitioner and order dated 15.01.2009 passed by the appellate authority against the petitioner have been challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner was an employee in Grade-IV category and was working as Messenger in the State Bank of India, G.S. Road Branch, Shillong. On 19.08.2006, the petitioner was placed under suspension and on 16.10. 2008 memorandum of charges issued to him as under:-

2. Charge - I

While you were working as messenger at our G S. Road Branch during the period from 25.04.1992 to 16.12.2003, you had withdrawn an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,65,580.00 on various dates during the period from 02.05.2002 to 17.07.2003 by forging the signature of the account holders from the following Savings Bank Accounts.

Charge - II

The following high value transactions took place in your Savings Bank account and current account maintained at G.S. Road Branch during the material time. The source of such transactions were not advised to the Branch Management by you.

Charge - III

Your Savings Bank account and Current Account maintained at our G S. Road Branch during the material time were debited for the following amounts for issuing STDRs in the name of third party. The reason of issuing STDRs in the name of third party by debit to your above accounts and your relation with them are not known to the Bank.

3. By the aforesaid memorandum, the petitioner was also asked to show-cause in writing as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. In his reply, he simply denied the charges leveled against him. Thereafter, the departmental inquiry was conducted against him. On the final day of the departmental inquiry i.e. on 21.05.2007, the petitioner could not attend the inquiry, therefore, an ex parte inquiry report was submitted and the same was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. However, when the petitioner submitted his objection, the Disciplinary Authority ordered to hold the departmental inquiry from the stage where the deferment was requested by the defense representative. When the inquiry recommenced, the defense representative raised objection on the ground that the first inquiry was conducted and concluded on 24.05.2007 and there cannot be any de novo inquiry. The inquiry officer referred the matter to disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the petitioner received the notice issued by the disciplinary authority proposing to impose punishment of dismissal without issuing notice in terms of Para No. 6(A) of memorandum of settlement of disposal causing procedure of workman. The petitioner in reply to the order submitted that the inquiry did not come to logical conclusion and he may be allowed full and fair opportunity to defend himself, then the impugned order of dismissal order was passed and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected. The petitioner has also alleged that the inquiry was conducted ex parte and the dismissal order is bad in law is liable to be set aside and the petitioner should be reinstated with back-wage and seniority.

4. The respondent in their affidavit-in-op-position have averred that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. Prior to 24.05.2007, the petitioner participated in the inquiry and only on 24.05.2007 his representative could not attend the inquiry. Although, the inquiry officer submitted his report, subsequently, the disciplinary authority gave him a scope to participate in the further inquiry, but the defense representative objected to continue with the proceeding on the ground that the first inquiry was conducted and concluded on 24.05.2007. The inquiry officer had to adjourn the inquiry and as a matter of abandon caution to ensure that there may not be any violation of the principles of natural justice, certain communications were sent to the defense representa