JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 794 of 2021

This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 115 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as mentioned in the application and also considering the facts that no counter affidavit has been filed opposing the interlocutory application by the respondents, we are of the opinion that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 794 of 2021 is allowed and delay of 115 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 477 of 2019

5. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent is preferred against the order/judgment dated 23.01.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6740 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge by dismissing the writ petition has refused to interfere with the order of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 14.12.2016 as also appellate order dated 29.03.2017 affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

6. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under: The appellant-writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant in State Bank of India, after going through the written examination and interview, vide appointment letter dated 31.12.2012. Thereafter, he was sent for training and after completion of training, he started to discharge his duties as Assistant. However, on the basis of finding of the investigation report, explanation was sought for from the writ petitioner-appellant vide memo dated 07.08.2015, as to why a proceeding should not be initiated against him for committing alleged offence in recruitment process, to which he replied denying the allegation leveled against him, which was found not satisfactory. Pursuant thereto, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner-appellant, in which he appeared and submitted his written statement of defence.

However, the enquiry officer, after considering the materials available, oral and documentary, found the charges leveled against the petitioner proved, which was accepted by the disciplinary authority, who imposed the impugned punishment of dismissal from service vide letter dated 14.12.2016, against which the petitioner, preferred appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2017.

Being aggrieved with order of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority, the writ petitioner-appellant approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6740 of 2017, wherein the learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel after taking into consideration the rival submissions of the parties, dismissed the writ petition showing no interference with the order of punishment, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal.

7. Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that there is inherent irregularity in the departmental proceeding since according to him, without any evidence the finding has been recorded by the enquiry officer and therefore, the order of dismissal since is based upon the aforesaid finding of the enquiry officer wherein evidence has not been considered, the order of dismissal is not sustainable in the eyes of law but the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate these aspects of the matter, as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. Mr. Pratiyush Kumar, learned counsel being assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank has submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Ju