JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

Petitioner has challenged order No.KMCB/HO/1690/06-07 dated 01.11.2006 passed by the respondent Bank, whereby, while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner, it has been directed that he shall not be paid the salary for the period of suspension, he shall be reverted to the post of Cashier from which he was elevated to the post of Assistant Manager, additional increments and other monetary benefits granted to the petitioner at the time of promotion be recovered from him and he shall not be posted at the cash receipt or payment counter.

2. It is the case of petitioner that he was appointed as Cashier-cum-Clerk in the respondent Bank on 27.07.1992, whereafter on the basis of his representations, pursuant to the decision and resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant (re-designated as Assistant Manager) in terms of order No.KMCB/HO/2248-54/04-05 dated 30.03.2005. On 15.04.2006, an order bearing No. KMCB/HO/1437-41/06-07 came to be issued by the Secretary of the respondent Bank whereby petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect till further orders. On 27.05.2006, vide No. KMCB/HO/183-90/06-07, issued by the Secretary of the respondent Bank, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner levelling certain charges and allegations against him and he was directed to file reply within a period of seven days. It is averred that petitioner responded to the said charge sheet in terms of letter dated 03.06.2006 and subsequently vide letter dated 22.06.2006, whereby he refuted all the charges levelled against him. On 18.07.2006, a show cause notice bearing No. KMCB/HO/1394-95/06-07, came to be issued by the Secretary to the respondent Bank against the petitioner, whereby action was proposed to be taken against the petitioner and he was directed to file reply to the show cause notice within a period of seven days. Petitioner submits that he filed a reply dated 21.07.2006 to the said show cause notice. On 01.11.2006, the impugned order came to be issued by the respondent Bank.

3. In terms of the Service Rules of the respondent Bank, petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid impugned order on 28.11.2006 and subsequently on 25.01.2007. However, no action was taken by the respondent Bank on the said appeal(s) compelling the petitioner to file the instant writ petition.

4. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that as per the Service Rules applicable to the petitioner, the Secretary of the respondent Bank has no competence to pass the impugned order; that no charge sheet was served upon the petitioner nor any enquiry was conducted by the respondents against him before passing the impugned order; that the charges levelled against the petitioner are vague and, as such, the charge sheet itself is liable to be set aside; that the impugned order passed by the respondents is a result of malafides and colourable exercise of power on the part of respondents and that impugned order is not sustainable in law.

5. Respondents have contested the writ petition by filing a reply thereto. In their reply it has been submitted that the conduct of petitioner has not remained up to the mark and that the petitioner has been involved in many acts of omission and commission right from his initial appointment. It is contended that the petitioner has been involved in misappropriation of funds of the respondent Bank and has been suspended on several occasions. It is further averred that the petitioner has never discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and has tried to harass the respondents by filing several cases before the Court. It is contended that the petitioner indulged in defalcation of funds, as a result of which he was placed under suspension in terms of order dated 15.04.2006. According to the respondents, the charges levelled against the petitioner were found established beyond doubt, as such, he deserve