ORDER :

Harinath. N, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination dated 04.11.2013 issued by the 1^st respondent and subsequent orders dated 04.03.2023 issued by the 3^rd respondent.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Customer Relationship Executive with the respondent on contract basis on 29.07.2008. The petitioner was subsequently appointed as Customer Relationship Officer on 02.08.2010. The petitioner initially worked in the state of Telangana and thereafter was transferred to Rajahmundry branch in the year 2012.

3. It is submitted that a complaint was lodged on 11.04.2011 alleging embezzlement of funds in connivance with the Assistant Manager while working at Warangal branch. It is submitted that the said complaint was withdrawn on 30.04.2011, however, a preliminary report was submitted by the Chief Manager, Khammam.

4. Proceedings were initiated on 30.08.2012 and the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 26.12.2012 and allegations were leveled against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation for each of the allegations and the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed. It is submitted that the enquiry was conducted without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. It is also submitted that the allegation relating to bribe is unfounded as there was no evidence to substantiate the said allegation.

5. It is a specific case of the petitioner that no witness was examined for substantiating the charges. It is submitted that during pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the orders of termination by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 30.08.2016. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. The petitioner challenged the rejection of appeal and filed W.P.M.P.No.17246 of 2017 and on 07.11.2022 this Court directed the respondents to consider the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on 03.02.2023 which was communicated to the petitioner on 22.02.2023. The petitioner has sought amendment of the prayer in the present writ petition challenging the rejection of appeal.

6. It is submitted that all the allegations which were leveled against the petitioner were relating to the period during which the petitioner was working on a Contract Basis as a Customer Relationship Officer. It is submitted that the role of a Customer Relationship Officer is very limited and is confined to assisting the customers who approached the bank for various works.

7. It is submitted that a contract employee does not have the power of approving any loan or recommend sanction of any loan. It is also submitted that the role of the petitioner never granted access to the petitioner to handle accounts of any of the customers, as such, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse.

8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the scope of this Court in reassessing the findings of the Enquiry Officer is limited and that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the violation of the principles of natural justice or violation of the Rules of Bank in conducting the enquiry. In absence of any deviation from the standard procedure, the writ petition cannot be maintained.

9. It is submitted that the S.B.I. Service Rules were made applicable and the appointment letter of the petitioner would make it amply clear that the Service Regulations are made applicable. It is submitted that P.W.1 was examined and he was also cross-examined. It is also submitted that the respondent authority had extended a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for defending himself and the petitioner was also permitted to utilize the services of a defence Assistant.

10. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer has conducted a thorough enquiry into the allegations a