Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 9.2.2007 passed in WP (C) No. 6723 of 2000 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of dismissal from the service of the State Bank of India (Respondent Bank). The facts of the case may be briefly noted.

2. Appellant was an employee of the respondent Bank. At the relevant point of time he was serving as an Assistant (Cash and Accounts). On 19.5.1999 a charge sheet was issued to him by the respondent Bank asking him to show cause as to why a disciplinary proceeding should not be drawn up against him on the charges mentioned therein. The primary charge was misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 3,032/- by the appellant due to an account holder of the respondent Bank Smt. Jyoti Borah. The further charge was that the appellant did not submit his explanation in response to the notice issued to him by the Jorhat Branch of the respondent Bank.

3. Appellant submitted his show cause reply on 28.6.1999 wherein he admitted that he had authenticated the alleged signature of Smt. Jyoti Borah in the bankers cheque. Explanation of the appellant was that the said account holder was known to him for quite a long period, so he signed on the reverse side of the cheque on good faith.

4. Appellant was also placed under suspension by order dated 28.6.1999.

5. On 17.7.1999 the appellant was informed by the Disciplinary Authority that it was decided to hold a departmental enquiry in respect of the charges framed against him. Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. Presenting Officer was also appointed to present the case of the respondent Bank in the enquiry. Appellant was informed that he would be permitted if he desired to be defended by a defence counsel.

6. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the appellant wherein he was given all opportunity to defend his case. The prosecution witnesses were examined in his presence and he was given opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Appellant did not produce any witness on his behalf other than himself.

7. At the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report wherein he came to the conclusion that the appellant had forged the signature of Smt. Jyoti Borah which was again verified by him to establish its genuineness. Therefore, he concluded that the charge as communicated to the appellant vide charge sheet dated 19.5.1999 as a whole stood proved.

8. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the appellant. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal from service on the appellant and vide letter dated 30.11.1999 called upon the appellant to submit representation against the proposed punishment. Appellant submitted his representation on 14.12.1999 stating that verification of the signature on the bankers cheque was done in good faith as the person was known to him. He also stated that he had paid the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,032/- to the account holder to ensure that the good image of the Bank was not affected.

9. The Disciplinary Authority after consideration of the enquiry report as well as the representation of the appellant, passed the final order dated 28.1.2000 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the appellant.

10. Appellant filed appeal dated 21.2.2000 before the Appellate Authority against the aforesaid punishment imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority by a detailed order dated 18.7.2000 rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the punishment imposed.

11. Appellant thereafter filed writ petition before this Court, which was registered and numbered as WP (C) No. 6723 of 2000, challenging the charge sheet, enquiry report, order of punishment as well as the order of the Appellate Authority and seeking a direction for reinstatement in service. The challenge was made basical