JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. M Batt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G Tarak, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Also heard Ms. P Sangeeta learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

2. By filing this writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 24.06.2015 (Annexure-8) issued by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect and to pay fine of Rs. 80 lakhs along with interest @ 14% per annum w.e.f. 31.03.2009. The petitioner has also challenged the minutes of the Board of Directors’ Meeting held on 01.06.2016 (Annexure-11) by which, the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected.

3. Brief facts of the essential for disposal of the writ petition is that the petitioner joined the Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank as Junior Management Scale-1 in the year 1985 and he was subsequently promoted to the post of Manager and posted at Kimin Branch in the month of January 2006. While working as such, he was placed under suspension vide Order No. 37/3179 dated 17.02.2010 on the allegation of misconduct. An FIR was also lodged against him by one Pulakesh Paul on 08.03.2010 before the Officer-in-Charge of Kimin Police Station, alleging that the petitioner has committed serious irregularities during the period from July 2009 to December 2009. The FIR further indicated that the preliminary investigation report dated 05.02.2010 indicated that a sum of more than Rs. 80 lakhs had been misappropriated and that the petitioner had executed a lease deed with the landlord of the building occupied by the Kimin Branch of Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank enhancing the rent without the prior approval and permission of the Head Office. On receipt on the FIR, Kimin P.S. Case No. 10/2010 under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered and investigation initiated.

4. The matter was thereafter transferred to SIC (Vigilance) Police Station to the Chimpu at Itanagar on 22.11.2010 for further investigation on the ground that the offence alleged to have been committed appeared to be offences covered by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 17.11.2011 under Section 409 IPC read with Section 13(1) (c)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act in the Court of Special Judge, Western Zone, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh.

5. While the investigation was being conducted, a departmental Proceeding was also initiated by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner and a Memorandum No. 37/1638 dated 15.12.2010 was issued against the petitioner containing as many as 7 (seven) charges. The petitioner was asked to submit his written statement against the charges within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the charge. The petitioner, accordingly on receipt of the Memorandum, submitted his written statement of defence on 30.12.2010 explaining the circumstances under which he had released the over-draft amount to the persons concerned. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, submitted the Enquiry Report on 26.12.2014 (Annexure-4) by coming to the conclusion that the Charges No. 1 to 6 was proved and in respect of Charge No. 7, the same was partially proved.

6. In the meantime, the criminal trial against the petitioner i.e. P.C.A. No. 25 (YPA)/2013 was concluded by the Trial Court through its Judgment and Order dated 29.12.2014. According to the learned Trial Court, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused (petitioner) beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted him of the charge under Section 409 IPC read with Section 13(2) (1)(c)&(d) of the P.C Act.

7. Upon being acquitted as such, the petitioner submitted his Joining Report to the respondent No. 2 on 12.02.2015 but he was not allowed to join. Instead, he was given a Communication dated 16.05.2015 (Annexure-7) wherein, it was stated that a disciplinary proceeding conducted against him was concluded with findings against him and therefore, the Bank