JUDGMENT :

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) 

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.12.2002 whereby the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of bringing down the petitioner to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages invoking Clause 19.6(e) of the Bipartite Settlement and directing that the petitioner is not entitled to any wages for the period of suspension except for the subsistence allowance already paid to him; as well as to the order dated 04.08.2003 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

2. Briefly, the undisputed facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper on 21.02.1977 with the New Bank of India, which was later merged with the Punjab National Bank. During the said time, one person representing himself as Rakesh Garg got issued four certificates of reinvestment for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each, on 16.01.1990, declaring his address as House No.636, Sector 37, Chandigarh. The said Rakesh Garg thereafter obtained a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the bank on 02.02.1990 against the said certificates of reinvestment and later, closed the account with premature payment of the said re-investment certificates on 12.03.1990. The Manager of Sector 33-A Branch of the Bank at Chandigarh, however, suspected some discrepancy in the Day Book and addressed a communication dated 17.05.1990 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, accusing the petitioner for the discrepancy and requested the police to register a criminal case and investigate the matter; on the basis whereof, an FIR No.137 dated 14.06.1990 was registered at Police Station South Chandigarh for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 380, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

3. It is submitted that on completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') was filed and the trial commenced. As many as eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its charge, which also included the officials of the bank (all of whom were eventually also the witnesses cited in the departmental proceedings). It is submitted that on culmination of the proceedings, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 07.12.1998.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to registration of the FIR by the police, a show cause notice was also served upon the petitioner on 29.05.1990 to which the petitioner submitted his detailed reply.

5. The petitioner was also placed under suspension w.e.f. 30.05.1990. After submission of the reply, the respondent-Authorities did not initiate any further action on the said show cause notice. Later on, after the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, he was reinstated in service by the respondents by revoking his suspension but without prejudice to the rights of the respondent-Bank to initiate an appropriate action in the matter. Vide order dated 12.02.1999, the respondent-Bank, while fixing the pay of the petitioner as if the petitioner had not been placed under suspension, granted increments and directed that the salary of the petitioner be regularized. The petitioner, later on, submitted a representation to the respondents to release the arrears of salary and other benefits, whereupon the respondent-Bank served a charge sheet dated 10.04.2001 upon the petitioner after a gap of nearly 11 years. The petitioner submitted his reply once again and besides raising various legal issues, also submitted that he already stood acquitted of the said charges by the trial Court and the said judgment has already attained finality and that the bank could not produce any evidence or material to prove the allegations levelled in the charge sheet against him. In the absence of any evidence having been adduced before the trial Court to link the petitioner with