JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

Heard Mr. D.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. G. Pegu, the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3.

2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30.12.2013, passed by the respondent No. 2, thereby imposing a penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner.

3. In brief, the case projected by the petitioner is that he had joined service in the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank w.e.f. 28.03.1985. He had served in various branches of the Bank in various capacities. While discharging his duty in Kosugaon Branch, he was served with a show-cause notice dated 02.09.2010, alleging commission of certain irregularities between 25.10.2003 to 24.09.2009 while posted at Serfanguri Branch. The petitioner projects that though he had submitted his show-cause reply, the management of the respondent Bank decided to hold an inquiry purportedly on the ground on non-receipt of show-cause reply. It is further projected that prior to the initiation of the inquiry, the respective customers in whose accounts the petitioner is alleged to have committed irregularities, had voluntarily deposited the differential amount with the respondent-Bank vide pay-in slips dated 08.06.2011, 14.06.2011, 25.10.2011, 26.10.2011 and 29.10.2012. Moreover, it is projected that over and above realizing the amounts from the four customers, the respondent Bank No. 1 had also realized a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the arrear salary of the petitioner, against the allegedly misappropriated amount and, as such, it is projected that the Bank had already realized twice of the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the departmental inquiry was conducted without following proper procedure, and it was in violation of the prescribed Rules and Regulations. It is submitted that despite objection, the Inquiry Officer did not allow the petitioner to inspect any documents and moreover, despite earnest request, the Inquiry Officer had also not allowed the petitioner to cross examine the sole management witness. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner did not get a reasonable and/or adequate opportunity to properly defend himself. It is projected that the disciplinary inquiry was only an eye-wash. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer, without considering the written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner, had proposed the punishment of removal from service. Moreover, by referring to the letter dated 20.11.2013, it is submitted that the respondent No. 2, i.e. the Disciplinary Authority, without putting the petitioner to any notice in course of the domestic inquiry, illegally took note of his past service record. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said authority had relied upon extraneous materials to inflict harsh and disproportionate punishment of removal from service. It is further submitted that after mechanical and perfunctory personal hearing, the impugned order dated 30.12.2013, thereby imposing the punishment of removal from service was passed against the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the notice dated 02.09.2010, which was initially served on the petitioner, the petitioner had clarified his position by his reply dated 29.09.2010. It is submitted that such stand was maintained by the petitioner all throughout. It is also submitted that prior to the commencement of the Disciplinary Inquiry, the concerned bank customers, namely, (i) Rishinath Narzary, and (ii) Ajit Kumar Brahma, had submitted their letter addressed to the General Manager of respondent No. 1 bank, admitting that the petitioner had acted as per their instructions. Moreover, it is submitted that vide letter da