( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the proceedings of the departmental enquiry held against their predecessor S. B. Dixit, who, at the relevant point of time, was serving on the post of officiating Branch Manager in the State Bank, the order passed by the disciplinary authority Annexure-P/3 dated 30/1/1997, the order of the appellate authority which was communicated to the petitioner on 30th August, 1997 and the order passed in review Annexure-P/7 dated 22/6/1998. ( 2. ) THE original petitioner is S. B. Dixit who passed away during the pendency of this petition and the present petitioners are his L. Rs. For convenence herein this petition where the petitioner is mentioned, it would mean s. B. Dixit, the original petitioner.

( 3. ) SEVERAL charges were framed against the petitioner in regard to temporary embezzlements of the amount which was not deposited by him in the Bank when he was serving on the post of Branch Manager. On going through charge sheet, it is gathered that one Shri Hardeo Singh handed over a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner on 24/6/1992 after banking hours for opening a Savings Bank Account in his name. The petitioner handed over a duly filled in pass book to him. However, the petitioner did not deposit the said amount in the Bank on the next day i. e. 25/6/1992 for credit to the depositors account. The amount was ultimately deposited by the petitioner on 2/11/1992 i. e. near about five months thereafter. In the meantime on 13/7/1992, Shri Hardeo Singh withdrew Rs. 19,000/- from his Savings Bank Account opened on 24/25-6-1992 which resulted into overdraft in the said account. Another charge which was framed against the petitioner was that on 20/7/1992 he was given Rs. 20,030/- by the Saving Bank Acount holder of Account No. 10138 for depositing the said amount in the account. The petitioner instead of depositing the said amount in the Sank on the same date, deposited it on 4/3/1993 i. e. after a lapse of about seven months. Certain other charges in regard to embezzlements are also framed against the petitioner. The details of charges are mentioned in Annexure-P/1.

( 4. ) THE petitioner refuted the charges, as a result of which departmental enquiry was initiated against him in which all the charges were found to be proved and the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 30/1/1997 (Annexure-P/3 ).

( 5. ) THE order of punishment was assailed by delinquent by filing a departmental appeal which was also dismissed and the result was communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-P/5 dated 30th August, 1997. The petitioner further assailed the said order by filing review petition which was also dismissed and the order was communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-P/7 dated 22/6/1998.

( 6. ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner specifically requested to the Enquiry Officer to supply the copies of the preliminary enquiry report but the same was not delivered to him, as a result of which it caused prejudice to the petitioner and, thus, the departmental enquiry is vitiated. It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that one S. L. Gupta, was examined as departmental witness but his examination was deferred and thereafter when he was again examined no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the petitioner. On merit, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the working system of the State Bank is that if an amount to deposit is received by the Branch Manager, the same is to be entrusted to the Cashier and the Cashier also signs the voucher. There is signature of the Cashier on the same voucher and if that is the position, the Cashier S. L Kori is equally responsible and this position has been ignored by the department. It has been further contended by learned Counsel that after looking to the overall assessment of the depa