By the Court.—We have heard Shri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri C.B. Gupta for the petitioner. Shri D.P. Bahadur appears for the Syndicate Bank and other respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 29.1.1999 passed by the Asstt. General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Industrial Relations Cell, Zonal Office, Lucknow awarding him punishment of dismissal from services of the bank with immediate effect, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under Regulation 4 (J) of the Syndicate Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976. The order has been passed for breach of Regulation No. 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of S.B.O.E. (Conduct) Regulation, 1976. It further directs that the suspension period of the petitioner shall not be treated as on duty for any purpose and he shall not be eligible for any back wages except subsistence allowance. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the General manager (P), the appellate authority by order dated 31st March, 1999.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that while the petitioner was posted as Asstt. Manager at Barakhamba Road Branch, New Delhi a first information report was lodged by M/s. Radient Exports & Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (the company) under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC against the bank officials (not named in the FIR) and an accountant of the company Mr. Dibankar Basu for fraudulently withdrawing of Rs.4,90,000/- from the account of the bank on the basis of forged signatures. A Vigilance Enquiry was conducted by the bank in which on 1.11.1994 the petitioner’s statement was recorded by Shri S.K. Abrol, Manager Vigilance. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 10.1.1995 and charge-sheet dated 24.10.1997 was served upon him. The petitioner filed a written statement on 8.1.1998 denying the allegations. The suspension order was revoked on 9.3.1998 and the petitioner was posted as Asstt. General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Moradabad. A regular enquiry was conducted on 19.5.1998, on a single day after which the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report on 1.7.1998. The petitioner denied the allegations and the proof of charges in his reply, which was not considered properly. He was dismissed from service on 29.1.1999 and his appeal was dismissed on 31.3.1999.

4. Shri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioner in respect of Cheque No. 810880 dated 20.7.1994 of Rs.4 lacs. This cheque was passed by the petitioner for which token was issued by Ms. Shyamla Manohar, Clerk; and the payment was made by Mr. Charan Singh, clerk. The other Cheque No. 810877 dated 5.7.1994 of Rs.90,000/- was passed by Mr. V.K. Paliwal, for which token was issued by the petitioner and the payment was made by Ms. Madhu Mahajan. The third cheque No. 810882 dated 1.8.1994 of Rs.2 lacs was passed by Shri Pankaj Bhatia, the token was issued by Ms. Shyamla Manohar and the payment was made by Shri V.K. Chawla. The petitioner was charged for passing first cheque of Rs.4 lacs, and for issuing token in respect of second cheque of Rs.90,000/-. The company was old customer of the bank.

5. In the Article of Charge No. 1, the petitioner was charged with passing Cheque No. 810880 dated 20.7.1994 on the same day on 20.7.1994 for Rs.4 lacs, though the signature of the authorised signatory on the cheque did not tally with the specimen signature lodged with the bank. The cheque was forged, for which reimbursement was sought by the company. The Article of Charge No. 2 alleged that on the reverse of the cheque the person presenting the cheque signed as ‘’Pradeep Roy’, though on earlier occasions he had encashed a number of self cheques drawn by the company by signing as ‘’Dibankar Basu’ (on the reverse). It was alleged that the petitioner failed to notice the discrepancy in the signatures while encashing the cheque. The Art