Hon'ble PANWAR, J.—By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders Annexure-10 dated 3rd January, 1994, Annexure-11 dated 31st December, 1993 and Annexure-15 dated 3rd May, 1994 and a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits including the payment of salary, annual grade increments, seniority, further promotion etc.

2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner initially came to be appointed in the year 1977 on the post of Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper. However, he became eligible for the promotion on the post of Junior Management, Grade-I and therefore, applied for the same and was qualified in the written test as well as in interview and thereupon, he came to be promoted on the post of Junior Management, Grade-I w.e.f. 1.11.1988 and has been working with the respondent-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (for short “the respondent-Bank” hereinafter) since then. A criminal case came to be lodged against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The matter was investigated by the C.B.I. and after investigation, on challan being filed by the C.B.I. before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Jodhpur, the trial proceeded and ultimately, by the judgment and order dated 21st March, 1997 Annexure-1, the petitioner came to be honourably acquitted by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Jodhpur. However, even after acquittal of the petitioner, a disciplinary enquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner under the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (for short “the Regulations of 1979” hereinafter). A memorandum of charges was issued on 7th May, 1992 purported to be under Chapter-X of Regulations of 1979 vide Annexure-2. The enquiry was held and on completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority and Disciplinary Authority by communication dated 27th October, 1993 sought objections with regard to the enquiry report vide Annexure-7. The petitioner submitted his objections with regard to the enquiry report vide Annexure-8 dated 17th November, 1993. Apart from the written statement, the petitioner requested the Disciplinary Authority to afford him an opportunity of personal hearing by communication Annexure-9 dated 30th November, 1993. However, the respondent did not afford the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority (General Manager, Operations) forwarded the enquiry report to the Chief General Manager, as the Chief General Manager being the appointing Authority of the petitioner, for its approval and imposed the penalty of his dismissal from service. The petitioner was served with a communication dated 3rd January, 1994 by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of his dismissal from service of the respondent-Bank. That order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority by order Annexure-15 dated 3rd May, 1994 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

3. The respondent-Bank filed reply to the writ petition supporting the orders impugned and contended that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. In the reply, lodging of the criminal case and the trial of the said case before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Jodhpur have not been disputed. However, it has been stated that the criminal trial on the same set of facts and also the departmental enquiry can proceed simultaneously and finding arrived at by the respondent-Bank in the disciplinary enquiry cannot be influenced by the acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case. It is also contended that charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner by the