The main legal point established is that grave misconduct, including faking STDRs, granting unauthorized loans, and exceeding authority limits, can lead to removal from service.

Surjit Singh, J.—Through the present writ petition the petitioner has sought quashing of orders dated 3rd July, 1997 and 20th August, 1998, whereby he has been ordered to be removed from the service of respondent No. 1, by way of punishment. In the alternative a direction has been sought for holding fresh inquiry in which the writ petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to engage a defence assistant of his choice.

2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this writ petition are that the petitioner was initially employed as Clerk-cum-Cashier with respondent No. 1. Thereafter he was promoted as Head Clerk and then as Assistant Manager. In the year of 1988 he was posted in the capacity of Assistant Manager in Kaza Branch of respondent No. 1 Bank. On further promotion, he was posted as Branch Manager in Kaza Branch itself on 27th August, 1990. He remained posted as such in the said Branch up to August, 1993. On 27.10.1993 the petitioner was placed under suspension for certain alleged acts of misconduct committed by him during his posting as Branch Manager at Kaza. Charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 6.12.1994. It consisted of various counts. The pith and substance of all the counts of charge was that while working as Branch Manager at Kaza and having custody of STDR Books, the writ petitioner removed eight forms of STDRs from the STDR Books and without receiving any money against those removed forms, filled in various amounts of money aggregating Rs. 26.75 lacs and also filled in the names of certain persons in those forms and then signed those forms. Then treating those forms (STD Rs) as genuine, he advanced loans or sanctioned cash credit facilities in favour of the persons, whose names were filled in those forms, showing the said STDRs as securities furnished by the loanees. In some of the cases the loans/cash credit facilities, sanctioned by him, were in excess of the upper limit fixed by the Bank for sanction of loans/cash credit facility by Managers. This way the petitioner was alleged to have committed various acts of misconduct, like faking the STDRs, using the faked STDRs as genuine, advancing loans and cash credit facilities against the security of those STDRs and sanctioning loans/cash credit facilities in excess of the limit upto which he was authorized to sanction loans/cash credit facilities.

3. After the service of the charge-sheet, regular inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer recorded the evidence adduced by the presenting side, i.e. respondent No. 1, as also the writ petitioner and submitted a report that all the seven charges stood proved either wholly or in part. Respondent No. 2, after supplying copy of the inquiry report and affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner to make representation, inflicted the penalty of removal from service. The writ petitioner filed an appeal to respondent No. 1, which was dismissed.

4. A criminal case was also got registered against the writ petitioner with Kaza Police. Report was filed by the Police against the writ petitioner after completing the investigation. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur tried the writ petitioner for offences, under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and at the end of the trial, acquitted him with the finding that the charge did not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Respondents have filed reply, wherein it is stated that the report of the Inquiry Officer is founded on unflinching evidence. It has been stated that based on the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority held the writ petitioner guilty and awarded the punishment of removal from service in accordance with the service rules, governing the petitioner.

6. Though various grounds have been taken in the writ petition to seek the quashing of the orders of punishment, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, while addressing arguments, confined his submissions only to the following:— (i) The writ petition