JUDGMENT :

In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Shri Lalit Kumar Singh has put to challenge the enquiry report, dated 01.05.2018, submitted by the Enquiry Officer, (holding that out of 6(six) charges, 4(four) have been proved, one not proved and one partly proved), and the order of punishment, dated 02.06.2018, passed by the disciplinary authority inflicting major punishment of removal of the petitioner from service, with immediate effect and also imposing fine upon him.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present writ petition is adumbrated herein below:-

“The petitioner was serving as Branch Manager in Basar Branch of Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank. He was suspended vide order dated 24.01.2009, by the respondent No. 2, under Rule 45 of the Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank Officers’ and Employees Service Regulation, 2001. Thereafter, vide letter dated 20.03.2009, the respondent No. 2 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner on various irregularities committed by him during his tenure as Branch Manager of Basar Branch. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 26.03.2009, denying all the allegations. Then without considering any detail of the Show-cause reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities charge-sheeted him on 06.05.2009. Thereafter, on 19.05.2009, the petitioner submitted his reply to the Charge-sheet and denied the allegation made in the article of charges. But, without considering the written statement, in its proper perspective, the enquiry was initiated by the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on 10.08.2009. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry and at the end, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the allegation and the charges were held to be proved except however, charge No. 3. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Chairman of the Bank, while agreeing to the enquiry report, inflicted major penalty on the petitioner vide order dated 10.12.2010, and he was removed from service and also a fine of Rs. 6,28,160/-with interest @ 14% per annum with effect from 05.01.2009, was imposed upon him and the period of suspension was directed to be treated as ‘not on duty’. Thereafter, on 10.01.2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected on 03.8.2011. Though the petitioner preferred an application for review, the same was also rejected vide order, dated 09.03.2012. Then being aggrieved by the order, of punishment and subsequent order passed thereon by the authorities, the petitioner preferred one writ petition before this Court, being WP(C) No.206 (AP)/2012. Then hearing both the sides, this court vide judgment and order dated 21.04.2017, has set aside the enquiry report dated 08.02.2010, and the order of the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Chairman of the Bank, dated 10.12.2010, removing the petitioner from service and imposing a fine of Rs. 6,28,260/-with interest. However, a liberty was given to the Bank to initiate disciplinary proceeding afresh against the petitioner vide Memorandum of Charges, dated 06.05.2009. Thereafter, on 06.06.2017 the respondent authorities reinstated the petitioner and vide letter dated 25.01.2018, the respondent No. 2 had appointed respondent No. 3 as the Enquiry Officer for denovo enquiry. And thereafter, on 05.02.2018, the Enquiry Officer had issued notice to him about the enquiry. And though this Court was pleased to direct the respondent Bank to give all consequential benefit to the petitioner, yet, the said order has not been complied with in respect of the consequential benefits.

And in the meantime, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, West Siang District, had taken cognizance of the offence under section 409 IPC, against the petitioner, on the Charge Sheet filed by the investigating agency on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the bank and summoned the petitioner to appear before it. Under such circumstances, the petitioner made