Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Cooperative City Bank Ltd., respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. This case was heard on 07.06.2016 and today is fixed for delivery of judgment. Accordingly, judgment is dictated in the open Court.

3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Managing Director, Cooperative City Bank Ltd. discharging the petitioner from the service of the Cooperative City Bank Ltd. (Bank).

4. A brief narration of the relevant facts is considered necessary. While the petitioner was serving as Branch Manager of the Bank, a show-cause notice dated 24.07.2013 was issued to him by the Managing Director with the allegation that while he was the Branch Manager of Ganeshguri Branch in the year 2007, he had obtained two cheques from M/s Sarma Enterprise issued by Sri Haren Sarma, proprietor drawn on his C/C A/c No. 19 maintained at the same Branch. One cheque bearing No. 049675 dated 13.04.2007 for an amount of Rs.3,80,000.00 was drawn in the name of the petitioner and the other cheque bearing No. 049676 dated 13.04.2007 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 was drawn in the name of petitioner's wife Meera Rahman. The cheque amounts were debited from the aforesaid C/C A/c No. 19 of M/s Sarma Enterprise on 17.04.2007 and credited in the S/B A/c No. 2974 which stood jointly in the name of petitioner and his wife in the Ganeshguri Branch. In connection with the aforesaid incident, seven charges were framed against the petitioner primarily dealing with violation of Rule 41 of the Cooperative City Bank Ltd. (Staff) Rules, 1991 (Staff Rules). Staff Rule 41 says that an employee of the Bank shall not borrow money from or in any way place himself under a pecuniary obligation to any person or any other employee of the Bank or any firm or person having dealings with the Bank. An employee shall also not make any investment in any business or trade without prior approval of the Bank.

5. The show-cause notice was accompanied by a statement of allegation, a list of documents by which the charges were sought to be established and a list of witnesses by whom the charges were sought to be proved. Petitioner submitted his written statement on 12.08.2013 denying the charges including the charge of violation of Rule 41.

6. An additional written statement was also submitted on 24.08.2013. Sum and substance of the stand taken by the petitioner is that his transaction with M/s Sarma Enterprise was purely an internal matter between himself and the proprietor as they have personal relationship. Financial transaction between the two had no nexus with the commercial activities of the Bank and noway affected discharge of duty by the petitioner. He therefore requested the management to take a lenient view of the matter and to drop the proceedings.

7. It appears that written statements submitted by the petitioner were not accepted by the management and it was decided to hold a departmental enquiry. In this connection, Sri Sumanta M. Baruah, an Advocate was appointed as enquiry officer. After holding the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 20.01.2014 to the disciplinary authority holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Proceeding further, the enquiry officer held that apart from violation of Rule 41 of the Staff Rules of the Bank there was also breach of Rules 30 and 32(i) of the Staff Rules which relates to breach of trust by an employee of the Bank. Managing Director issued second show-cause notice dated 16.04.2014 to the petitioner stating that report of the enquiry officer was accepted. Since charges against the petitioner stood proved, it was proposed that the punishment of discharge from service should be imposed on the petitioner. Petitioner was asked to show-cause as to