N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved over the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.06.2018, in W.P.(MD) No. 21275 of 2014, the present Writ Appeal came to be filed by the appellants.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Appeal are as follows :

The first respondent/writ petitioner was employed as Assistant (Accounts) in Kulithalai Branch of the State Bank of India. He was issued with a charge memo dated 20.11.2003 for alleged preparation of ledger sheets and the ACC cash withdrawal slips in respect of 70 ACC loan accounts, since the relative borrowers are not traceable. Accordingly, charge memo was proceeded on the ground that the first respondent/writ petitioner and others, with an ulterior motive to defraud the bank, prepared false documents and vouchers and caused sanction of loans by the Branch Manager. Prior to the issuance of charge memo, the first respondent/writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 03.03.2002. As many as 17 charges were issued. Necessary explanation was also submitted by the first respondent/writ petitioner.

3. When the matter stood thus, the first respondent/writ petitioner was also issued with another charge memo dated 15.12.2004, in respect of which, he has given a proper explanation. The first respondent/writ petitioner has obtained permission to be represented by one Thiru.M.Rajarathinam in the departmental enquiry as his Defence Representative. The first appellant/Disciplinary Authority passed an order to the effect that the said Rajarathinam should no longer continue as Defence Assistant. Challenging the same, the first respondent/writ petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.7999 of 2005 and the same was allowed on 16.07.2007. Writ Appeal filed by the Management was also dismissed. However, Review Application filed by the Management was allowed on 13.03.2013, which reached finality.

4. In the meanwhile, for the same set of allegations, prosecution also launched against the first respondent/writ petitioner in C.C. Nos. 494 to 496 of 2006. The Management proceeded with the enquiry, in which, the first respondent/writ petitioner has engaged one S. Gunasekhar as his Defence Representative. The first respondent/writ petitioner gave a representation dated 31.12.2013 to the Enquiry Officer requesting him to defer the disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of the prosecution. As the same has not been considered, he filed another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.679 of 2014 for deferring the departmental action. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition, with a direction to the Management to pass orders on the representation of the first respondent/writ petitioner. However, the first respondent has already rejected his representation, by his order dated 17.01.2014 and appointed one Thiru.M.Srinivasan as Enquiry Officer. An enquiry was fixed on 04.02.2014. The first respondent/writ petitioner sought an adjournment on medical ground and also submitted a Medical Certificate. However, the said Enquiry Officer submitted an exparte enquiry report. Based on that, consequential proceedings dated 05.03.2014 were also issued by the first appellant. Those enquiry report as well as the consequential proceedings were challenged by the first respondent/writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.5224 of 2014. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 23.07.2014, allowed the Writ Petition, wherein at Paragraph Nos.25, 26 and 30, it was held as follows:

"25. The enquiry officer issued a communication to the petitioner on 28.01.2014 intimating him that the enquiry would be conducted at 11.30 a.m., on 04.02.2014. The petitioner, through his letter dated 04.02.2014, expressed his inability to attend the enquiry, on medical ground. The enquiry officer rejected the said request and conducted the enquiry on 04.02.2014 and 05.02.2014 and ultimately, submitted a report holding that the charges 1 to 9, 11 and 13 to 17 were proved.

26. There is no dispute that the petitioner submitted an appl