S.N. Pathak, J.

The appellant in both the Letters Patent Appeals is same and the questions involved are inter-related and as such, have been tagged and heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Saurav Arun for the appellant in both the appeals and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Bank.

3. The appellant has challenged the Judgment/order dated 15.06.2007, by which learned Single Judge dismissed C.W.J.C. No. 2310 of 1995 (R) filed against the punishment of removal from the service and C.W.J.C. No. 56 of 1996 (R) which was filed against the inflicting punishment of reversion to Junior Manager Grade at lowest scale.

4. The brief facts of L.P.A. No. 258 of 2007.

The appellant had filed C.W.J.C. No. 2310 of 1995 (R) challenging order dated 04.11.1993 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] passed by Chief General Manager, State Bank of India (Respondent No. 3) by which after the departmental proceeding, the appellant was inflicted penalty of removal from service in terms of Rule 67(g) of the State Bank of India, Officers' Service Rule and also order dated 08.03.1995 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition], passed by the Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India (Respondent No. 2) dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 04.11.1993.

5. The appellant, who was the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, HEC, Sector-II Branch, Ranchi, was proceeded departmentally for the charges dated 13.06.1989 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition].

Charge No. 1.

On 15.12.1983, he opened a Savings Bank Account No. 11945 in a fake name viz. Shri Ajit Kumar Agrawal and also verified the forged signature appearing on the relative account opening form. He thus showed gross negligence in opening the said account through which a series of frauds involving Rs.2,52,000/- were perpetrated, causing the Bank a pecuniary loss of the same amount. The list of fraudulent payment manipulated through the said account is given in Annexure 'A'.

CHARGE-2.

He passed the following payments (a to k) from different Savings Bank Accounts although the relative instruments had not been posted in the concerned accounts:-

Moreover, the balance of account no. 10586 at the time of making payments mentioned against b, c, d, e and f was Rs.875.44 only. All the aforementioned payments turned out to be fraudulent once. Had he cared to refer to the concerned ledgers before passing the instruments, frauds amounting to Rs.1,12,000/- could have been averted.

CHARGE-3

He passed the aforementioned payment without satisfying himself that the relative instruments were in order in every particular and thereby violated the instructions contained in para 3(c), Chapter-2 of the Bank's Book of Instructions, Volume-II.

CHARGE-4.

On the following dates (a to g of the charge sheet) while checking the Clean Cash Book, he failed to notice that the figures of Savings Bank Account appearing therein did not tally with those of Savings Bank Summary Day Book. His perfunctory checking of the Clean Cash Book resulted in suppression of frauds amounting to Rs.70,000/-.

CHARGE-5

He has thus not only failed to discharge his duties with devotion and diligence, much against Rule 32(4) of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules but also caused a heavy pecuniary loss to the Bank.

The enquiry officer, by his enquiry report dated 05.02.1992, held that the Charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were not proved against the appellant. However, the Charge No. 4 stood proved against him.

6. The disciplinary authority, vide his order as contained in Annexure-4, dated 04.11.1993, concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer with regard to the Charge Nos. 2, 3 and 4 but he disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer so far the Charge Nos. 1 and 5 were concerned. He held that:

(i) The appellant failed to discaharge his duties with devotion and diligence;

(ii) The appellant failed to