( 1. ) THE petitioner who was working as Assistant Manager, Cash in the United Commercial Bank, Sabalgarh, Distt. Morena has called in question the order dated September 9, 1998 Annexure P-1 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of removal from service with immediate effect and the order Annexure P-2 dated September 9, 1998 passed by the Appellate Authority modifying the punishment in appeal and converting the same into compulsory retirement from service.

( 2. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was appointed as a Cashier cum Godown Keeper in the respondent Bank with effect from January 29, 1973. He was promoted to the post of Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the year 1987 and was posted at Sabalgarh vide order dated January 14, 1992.

( 3. ) WHILE the petitioner was working in the Sabalgarh Branch he was suspended on March 14, 1996, by order dated March 12, 1996 Annexure P-6 and subsequently a chargesheet dated July 5, 1996 Annexure P-7 was issued to him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet vide Annexure P-8. Vide Annexure P-9 certain corrections were done to the chargesheet. An enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on July 14, 1997 vide Annexure P-10 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter the Disciplinary authority Respondent No. 3 passed the order of punishment vide Annexure P-1. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority vide memorandum of appeal Annexure P-12. The appellate authority after hearing the petitioner in response to his appeal passed the order Annexure P-2 reducing the punishment from that of removal of service to compulsory retirement. The petitioner had submitted a Review Petition before the Respondent No. 1 but the same remained undecided till date.

( 4. ) THE petitioner by this petition has challenged the orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 on various grounds. The main ground urged by the petitioner are:

(i) documents requested for by the petitioner were not submitted. (ii) that the evidence account holders who are examined as defence witnesses by the petitioner were not considered by the authorities concerned. (iii) the findings of the enquiry officer is perverse. (iv) Opportunity of examination of the petitioner as required under Rule 6. 17 of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees Regulations 1976 hereinafter referred as the regulations were not followed. (v) The statement of witnesses recorded in the preliminary enquiry, copy of the report of the preliminary enquiry and copy of the complaint were not supplied to him.

( 5. ) IN the enquiry proper opportunity of defence was not given. In all it is stated by the petitioner that the enquiry was held contrary to rules in violation of the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed.

( 6. ) THE respondent Bank on the contrary submitted that the petitioner has committed serious act of misconduct and the entire action was taken against him in accordance with the rules and regulations. Full opportunity of defence was extended to the petitioner and there are enough material available on record on the basis of which finding of guilt has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the appellate authority has modified the order of punishment. The respondent bank have also made available the original enquiry proceedings for perusal of this Court. It is submitted by the bank that in view of the above, no interference is called for.

( 7. ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It was vehemently submitted by Shri D. K. Katare learned counsel for the petitioner that copies of the complaint, statement recorded in the preliminary enquiry and the material on the basis of which charge-sheet was issued were not supplied to him. It is also argued by him that the account holders have given their statement from the statement of DW-1 Shri Chirongilal appearing at page 155 of the enquiry proceedings and the statem