ORDER:

Present writ petition challenges the orders of dismissal passed by 2^nd respondent by proceedings CDR/F.206/6/3606/ 3618, dated 24.05.2002, as affirmed by appellate authority – 1^st respondent by proceedings Rc.No.34996/2002-Z.I.2A, dated 15.10.2003, to be illegal and consequently to set aside the same and allow all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are set out as under:

(a) Petitioner served as General Manager (on Full Additional Charge basis) with A.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited (herein after, for short ‘APCOB’) at Visakhapatnam Branch. He was served with charge Memo dated 14.08.2000 setting out four articles of charge. The allegations levelled against him were that in the capacity of G.M. (FAC), he stated to have invested huge sum of Four Crores from out of the bank funds in private bank namely Sikkim Bank at Hyderabad vide four different FDRs dated 05.11.1998, 16.11.1998, 19.11.1998 and 07.12.1998 in violation of prescribed norms and out of such investments, one of the fixed deposit failed realization despite maturing on 18.03.1999, resulting in huge financial loss to the bank.

(b) The allegation was that on account of petitioner’s negligence and not acting in best interest of the bank, violated Regulation Nos.28 and 29 of Common Cadre Regulations. Further, yet another allegation was that though the FDR could not be realized, petitioner stated to have facilitated adjustment vouchers as if the matured proceeds of ₹1,02,69,260/- came to be realized, thereby exhibited dishonesty and unfaithfulness contravening Regulation 29 of the Regulations.

(c) Lastly that petitioner, having full knowledge of non- realization of aforesaid FDR, failed to report the matter either to Board of DCCB or to APCOB, which constituted suppression of fact and violated Regulation 29 of Regulations.

(d) Petitioner submitted explanation refuting the allegations. The same was followed by Enquiry and Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 06.11.2001 holding that 1^st charge was not proved, did not answer whether any specific financial loss occurred as mentioned under 2^nd charge and held that charges 3 and 4 in relation to dereliction of duty and suppression of information were proved. Petitioner was issued show-cause notice.

(e) The Disciplinary Authority, having disagreed with findings of enquiry officer to the extent of charges 1 and 2 and approving the findings with regard to charges 3 and 4, recording reasons for disagreement, issued show-cause notice dated 07.03.2002, calling upon petitioner to submit explanation as to why punishment of dismissal from service for grave irregularities should not be inflicted.

(f) Petitioner submitted explanation on 12.04.2002 and eventually, the disciplinary authority passed impugned order vide proceedings No.CDR/F.206/6/3606/3618, dated 24.05.2002, holding that the charges since came to be proved imposed punishment of removal from service. The said order came to be affirmed by 1^st respondent – appellate authority by proceedings Rc.No.34996/2002-Z.I.2A, dated 15.10.2003.

(g) Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. Respondents filed counter opposing the writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Mohd. Abdul Basith, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Brahmhananda Reddy Somasani, learned standing counsel for A.P. State Cooperative Bank.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner assailed the impugned punishment order on following grounds:

(a) that no specific reason has been assigned in disagreeing with the findings of enquiry officer, therefore, the same is in contravention of Rule 21(2) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (herein after, for short ‘CCA Rules’) which were adopted to the respondent bank. In support, reliance has been placed on following judgments:

(i) Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra1 (1998) 7 SCC 84

(ii) Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Yoginath D.Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another2 (1999) 7 SCC 739

(b)