A disciplinary authority may order a further inquiry to correct deficiencies in initial proceedings when necessary for ensuring justice, provided it does not violate principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.

2. The challenge in the present proceeding is to an order dated 12.09.2013, issued by the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner on conclusion of a departmental proceeding instituted against him. The petitioner has also challenged the enquiry report dated 06.08.2013, as well as the order of appellate authority dated 26.05.2014.

3. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to briefly encapsulate the relevant facts so as to have a proper perspective of the case.

4. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as a Cashier-cum-Clerk-cum- Typist in the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’) and posted at its Hayuliang Branch, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner joined his services on 10.09.1987. The petitioner, while working as a Senior Assistant at the Doomdoma Branch of the Bank, was vide a communication dated 30.10.2009 placed under suspension basing on allegations of commission of irregularities/lapses and contemplation of disciplinary action against him. The said order of suspension came to be revoked vide Memorandum dated 25.10.2011. On revocation of the order of suspension of the petitioner, he was vide communication dated 05.11.2011, transferred and posted to the Changlang Branch of Arunachal Pradesh of the respondent bank as Senior Assistant. The petitioner accordingly undertook the posting.

5. Vide a communication dated 13.01.2012, the petitioner was required to submit his explanation with regard to the irregularities as highlighted therein, alleged to have been committed by him during the period of his service at the Doomdooma Branch of the Bank. The petitioner, on receipt of the said communication dated 13.01.2012, submitted his reply in response thereto, on 13.01.2012 and therein, while denying the allegation so leveled against him also set out his explanation thereto. The Disciplinary authority thereafter, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 18.07.2012, leveling against him 5(five) allegations. It is to be noted that allegation No. I, II, III, IV, pertains to specific irregularities as committed by the petitioner while allegation No. V, pertains to the loss suffered by the bank on account of the irregularities as committed by the petitioner, as well as the loss of confidence of the people on the bank on account of the irregularities committed by the petitioner.

6. The petitioner, in response to the said show-cause notice dated 18.07.2012, proceeded to submit his reply on 10.08.2012 and therein, denied the allegations leveled against him. The petitioner raised a plea in the said reply dated 10.08.2012, that the irregular transactions now alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, in the show-cause-notice, was not done by him and was so done by other staff of the said branch of the bank and he has been made a scapegoat in the matter. The reply submitted by the petitioner not being satisfactory, the disciplinary authority vide communication dated 17.09.2012, intimated the petitioner about holding of a departmental enquiry into the allegations so leveled against him in the said show-cause notice.

7. At this stage, it is to be noted that an amended show-cause not