JUDGMENT

B. P. DAS, J. : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 23.9.1992 passed by opposite party No.2 imposing certain penalties which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, are shockingly disproportion¬ate to the charges and that too the multiple punishments are contrary to the service Rules. The charges framed against peti¬tioner, as it appears from Annexure-2, are as follows :-

“3. You are therefore, charged with-

(a) having colluded with others in the substitution of 7992 punched notes in the 114 packets of non-issuable notes, with the intention of causing pecuniary loss to the Bank.

Or in the alternative

(aa) having performed our duties as Asst. Treasurer grossly negligently, in failing to notice the substitution of 7992 punched notes of Rs.100/- denomination in the said 114 packets, inter alia, by not following the instructions contained in paras 39 and 53 of the Chapter-III of the issue department manual (1972 edition).

(b) having caused pecuniary loss to the bank in the sum of Rs.7,99,200/- being the value of the substituted 7992 pieces of non issuable notes of Rs.100 denomination.

Accordingly, this charge sheet is i