JUDGMENT :

(Kardak Ete, J.)

1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 19.05.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP(C)7723/2017.

2. We have heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. Boruah, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The case of the appellant is that while serving as an Accountant in the State Bank of India, Bilasipara Branch, Dhubri, the respondent No.5 issued the letter dated 19.08.2011, whereby the appellant was suspended from his service for committing certain gross irregularities by making various unauthorized transactions in the customers’ account when he was posted at Kamargaon Branch, Barpeta.

4. The appellant contends that on the same set of facts, GR Case No.2271/2011 was also registered against the appellant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta on the basis of Sorbhog PS Case No.242/2011.

5. Thereafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant, and a Memorandum dated 10.12.2012 along with Articles of charges, statement of imputation of lapses during the period from 11.11.2009 to 21.05.2011, list of documents and list of witnesses was furnished. The appellant submitted his written statement of defense on 15.01.2013 denying the charges and stating that all the transactions were bonafide banking transactions and were done in furtherance of genuine underlying commercial transaction and were thus regular. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, by letter dated 01.03.2013 furnished the appellant an Article of charges, statement of imputation of lapses, list of documents and list of witnesses. The appellant contends that during the hearing neither he was given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer nor was the appellant allowed to examine witness, as such the proceedings were held in gross contravention of principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Authority had closed the proceeding and prepared the inquiry report on 05.06.2013. On 29.06.2013, the respondent authority furnished the Enquiry Report-cum-findings along with the comments of Disciplinary Authority. By order dated 19.11.2013, a penalty of dismissal in terms of Rule 67(j) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules with an order for forfeiture of gratuity fully in terms of Rule 4(6) (a) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was imposed. An appeal was preferred on 10.02.2014 and the same was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 11.04.2014 confirming the penalty of dismissal from service and forfeiture of gratuity in terms of Rule 4 (6) (a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The appellant contends that during the entire departmental proceedings, the respondent authorities have failed to produce any cogent evidence that the customers had filed any complaint before the Bank for the monetary loss. If there was any written complaint the authorities could have produced the same during the inquiry or the same should have been annexed with the list of documents. Moreover, the customers whose name has been stated in the charge-sheet or statement of imputation, the Inquiry Authority ought to have examined them during the departmental proceeding to substantiate the allegations for a logical conclusion. Therefore the inquiry report is based on no evidence and the impugned action taken by the respondent authorities on the basis of Enquiry Report cannot be sustained.

6. The appellant contends that vide judgment dated 07.03.2017 the petitioner has also been acquitted in GR Case No.2271/2011, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, due to lack of evidence.

7. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service and forfeiture of gratuity in terms of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 by vide order dated 19.11.2013, the appellant filed the WP(C)/7723/2017 and the Hon’ble Single Judge by judgment and order dated 19.05.2022 held that acquittal in criminal case is not determin