Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner Shant Dev Tripathi has assailed the order dated 4th December, 2000 passed by Assistant General Manager, Region I, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as “disciplinary authority”) dismissing him from the post of Clerk, confining salary (for the period of suspension) to the subsistence allowance already paid to him; denying increment for the period of suspension; and the appellate order dated 4th September, 2001 passed by the Deputy General Manager rejecting appeal.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute may be stated as under :

3. The petitioner while working as a Clerk in State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”) (Kaimganj Branch) District Farrukhabad was served with a memo dated 20th September, 1994 making several allegations constituting irregularities etc. in discharge of his duties, requiring him to submit explanation within seven days failing which disciplinary proceedings are to be initiated against him under the Rules. He was also placed under suspension vide order dated 27th September, 1994. A supplementary memo was issued to petitioner on 26th October, 1994 containing three more allegations/charges.

4. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 30th January, 1995 stating that Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bidhuna Branch is not cooperating with petitioner to allow him to peruse certain documents enabling him to submit reply to memos dated 20.9.1994 and 26.10.1994 and sought instructions from the officer concerned facilitating inspection of documents.

5. It is worthy to mention that both the memos relate to acts or omission alleged to have been committed by petitioner while posted as Clerk at Bidhuna Branch. The Branch Manager, Kaimganj Branch vide letter dated 14th March, 1995 informed the petitioner that he is neither entitled to peruse nor to obtain photocopies of documents relied on by the Bank to substantiate charges before enquiry is initiated.

6. The petitioner, in the circumstances, submitted a short reply dated 24th March, 1995 denying all the charges contained in memos of 20.9.1994 and 26.10.1994. The disciplinary authority in the meantime issued another memo dated 13th March, 1995 in addition to the earlier memos dated 26th October, 1994 containing 11 more charges. The said memo was served upon the petitioner on 10th April, 1995.

7. The petitioner submitted letter dated 30th May, 1995 informing disciplinary authority that he relinquished charge at Bidhuna Branch on 26th August, 1994 and therefore without perusing document, it is not possible to submit any effective reply. He therefore, sought permission for inspection of relevant documents. This request was again turned down by Branch Manager vide letter dated 30th June, 1995. The petitioner thereafter submitted reply dated 3rd July, 1995 denied allegations contained in memo dated 13th March, 1995. He also sent another letter dated 4th July, 1995 to the Branch Manager Kaimganj Branch requesting him to forward his reply dated 3rd July, 1995 to the disciplinary authority.

8. In the meantime, Bank also lodged a first information report against petitioner pursuant whereto a charge sheet was submitted by Police and a criminal case No. 592 of 1995 was registered against petitioner in the Court of 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. A copy of the charges framed on 22.1.1997 against the petitioner by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah has been filed as Annexure 11.

9. The Bank thereafter commenced disciplinary inquiry and issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on 20th October, 1995 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) which contained 24 charges. The petitioner was charged in general under para 521(4) (j) of Sastry Award as retained by Desai Tribunal. It also mentioned that petitioner had not submitted explanation for memos dated 20.9.1994, 26.10.1994 and 13.3.1995 received by him on 27.9.1994, 12.12.1994 and 10.4.199