JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R.SARANGI, J. - The petitioner, while working as Head Assistant (Accounts), State Bank of India at Jeypore, was incharge of pension payment section as an officiating officer in Scale-I cadre from June, 1995 to August, 1998. It is alleged that during the period from 09.12.1996 to 06.11.1997, he committed irregularities of serious nature in respect of pensions, savings bank accounts of the pensioners and dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs. 73,000/- by cheating the pensioners fraudulently and forging their accounts. The said fact, having come to the notice of the Bank authorities, was enquired into by an investigating team, which submitted a report against the petitioner in August, 1998. On the basis of such report, the Chief Manager lodged an FIR in writing against the petitioner before the IIC, Town Police Station, Jeypore on 12.11.1998, which was registered as Jeypore Town P.S. Case No. 266 of 1998 under Sections 409/420/468/471/477-A, IPC. During investigation, the Investigating Officer seized various documents, examined witnesses and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner faced trial and, after its completion, was acquitted of the charges levelled against him by judgment dated 27.10.2003 passed in G.R. Case No. 735 of 1998.

2. On the self same matter, simultaneously, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and, by letter dated 03.08.1998, he was asked, by the Chief Manager, to show cause. On 31.08.1998, the petitioner, on the basis of the allegations raised on 03.08.1998, was put under suspension. On 29.07.2002, charge sheet was submitted levelling 33 charges against the petitioner. The act of omission and commission in banking transaction, being misconduct as per “Shastry Award”, the petitioner was called upon to submit explanation vide memorandum dated 11.05.1999. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his reply on 10.07.1999. Thereafter, on 12.10.2000, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the charge sheet dated 29.07.2000 denying the allegations made against him. It was contended specifically that the petitioner discharged his duty in good faith. As he was an active union member holding the posts of Branch Chairman and President of S.B.I. Staff Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jeypore, the rival union set up and got the charge sheet filed against him. Consequentially, the petitioner was harassed both in criminal and departmental proceedings.

3. Pursuant to order dated 25.10.2000, one Sri P.K. Patnaik was appointed as enquiry officer. Enquiry continued and finally the enquiry officer submitted report on 27.09.2001. The petitioner, on 15.07.2002, submitted explanation to the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority stating inter alia that the enquiry officer was biased, and therefore, the report should not be accepted. But, without appreciating the materials on record and also the objection raised by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 10.08.2002 dismissing the petitioner from the bank service with immediate effect and the period of suspension was directed to be not treated as on duty. Against the said order imposing punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by office order dated 04.10.2002, hence this writ application.

4. Mr. S. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that for the self same charges both criminal and disciplinary proceedings were continuing. After full-fledged trial, the petitioner, having been acquitted of the charges by the competent court of law, the disciplinary authority, for the self same charges, should not have proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding and imposed major penalty like dismissal from service and treated the suspension period as such. It is contended that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority has passed reasoned orders justifying imposition of penalty against the petit