Ajay Rastogi, J.

1. Instant intra court appeal is directed against order of the Ld. Single Judge dt.31.7.2000 holding that the finding of the enquiry officer in regard to charge no.2 & 3 was totally perverse and not supported by any tangible documentary evidence on record and the order of penalty dt.12.7.1991 based on such faulty enquiry being in violation of principles of natural justice is not sustainable in law and the officer was entitled to all the benefits as if he has not been removed from service.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was working in the Officers Cadre as Junior Management Grade Scale-I (Dy. Manager) with the State Bank of India at Sanganeri Branch, Jaipur in 1982-84 and continued to work as such upto 17.11.1984 and thereafter he was transferred to Srinagar, Garwal in 1986. For some alleged delinquency of the year 1982-1984, he was placed under suspension on 20.2.1988 and was served with the charge sheet dt.30.7.1990 and the allegation against him was that while working at Sanganeri Branch, Jaipur he failed to enter the STDRs in the security register ledger of one Shyam Sunder, the borrower for two STDRs for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The second charge was that he along with Shyam Sunder insisted for cash payment of STDRs from Ms. NA Khan officiating as officer JMGs-I and verified the signature of Shyam Sunder and got the STDRs cleared despite that STDRs were under lien and the payment of STDRs could not have been made. It was also alleged that cash payment of STDRs over Rs.10,000/- was in violation of the bank instructions.

3. After the charge sheet came to be served, the respondent submitted reply (Ann.2) in which clarification was made that before the charge sheet came to be served upon him, because of some complaint, the so called alleged allegation has been enquired at least four times by different officers at different times and his explanation found to be valid & justified and he is now facing with the allegations for the 5th time. He had denied the charges but without taking note of enquiry earlier made on five different occasions and at no point of time the officer has found prima facie truthfulness in the allegation leveled against him still the enquiry officer was appointed.

4. The respondent officer submitted application to demand certain documents for the purpose of his defence dt.24.10.1990 (Ann.5), in response thereto, the enquiry officer sent him reply dt.19.11.1990 (ann.6) that the documents demanded by him will be supplied at the time if the said witnesses are examined during the course of enquiry and the fact is that the relevant documents demanded by him were never supplied and fair opportunity of hearing has not been afforded particularly opportunity to cross examine PW4 Shyam Sunder, however, enquiry officer ultimately submitted his report holding charge no.2 & 3 proved and based on the report of enquiry, disciplinary authority proceeded in the matter and finally passed penalty of removal from service vide order dt.12.7.1991.

5. Initially, enquiry was conducted by four different officers namely Mr. AD Khan; Mr. JC Loothra; Mr. KL Sachdeva & Mr. AK Sarin in the year 1985, 1986, 1987 & 1989 respectively and despite his insistence copies of these enquiry reports were neither supplied prior to filing of writ petition nor placed on record after the writ petition came to be preferred by him and even when the matter was heard by Ld. Single Judge, the counsel took time to place the record of enquiry earlier made at five different occasions but still failed to place on record, even this Court also afforded opportunity to place the record of enquiry earlier conducted but still failed to place on record.

6. However, disciplinary enquiry proceeded and in support of the Bank, statement of witnesses PW1 Mr. PK Suri & PW2 Miss. NA Khan came to be recorded, however, name of Mr. PK Suri was neither available in the list of witnesses nor in the charge sheet served upon the delinquent.

7. O