JUDGMENT :

Soumitra Saikia, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2897/2013.

2. The appellant was initially appointed to the post of Office Assistant (multi-purpose) at Hatisung, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (hereinafter referred to as “AGV Bank”) branch in the District of Nagaon on 01.06.1990. After rendering service in different branches of the AGVB, the appellant was posted at the Morigaon Branch in the same capacity at the relevant point in time. While, she was serving in the Morigaon Branch of AGVB, she was served with a letter dated 23.03.2011 issued by the respondent No. 4, calling upon her to submit her explanation in respect of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) which it was claimed was misappropriated by the appellant for the period from 21.02.2011 to 17.03.2011. Pursuant to the said letter, the appellant submitted her explanation denying the allegations leveled against her in her reply dated 25.03.2011. On the same date, by another communication dated 25.03.2011, the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority of the Bank placed the appellant under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant. The appellant was issued show-cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against her for misappropriating an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the period from 21.02.2011 to 17.03.2011. The appellant denied all the charges leveled against her by furnishing her reply dated 29.07.2011. A further notice was issued by the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority dated 13.10.2011 whereby Article of Charges were served on the appellant. The appellant submitted her written statements on 31.10.2011 against the allegations levelled against her. Not being satisfied with her explanation furnished by way of the written statements, the Bank decided to initiate a departmental enquiry against the appellant and appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the appellant. A Presenting Officer was also appointed to present the Bank’s case in the departmental enquiry. The enquiry, thereafter, proceeded and the appellant also participated in the departmental proceedings which concluded on 16.05.2012. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report holding that all the charges levelled against the appellant stands proved. The Chairman and Disciplinary Authority furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant and permitting her to submit her statements. The appellant submitted her statements denying all the allegations and further stating that the Management Witnesses (M.W.) were not able to prove the signature of the appellant in the counter foil dated 21.02.2011 and also that the Enquiry Officer denied her request to summon vital witnesses for adducing evidence in her support. By communication dated 30.11.2012, the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority proposed to impose the punishment of removal from the service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. The appellant was permitted to appeared personally or to submit her written representation with regard to the proposed punishment. The appellant responded by appearing in-person before the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority denying the allegations of misappropriation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority by communication dated 24.12.2012 imposed the punishment on the appellant of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. Against the said order of punishment dated 24.12.2012, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 04.02.2013 before the appellate authority. However, the same also came to be dismissed rejected by the appellate authority by communication dated 04.03.2013. Being aggrieved the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2897/2013 challenging the impugned order d