The petitioner's dismissal was upheld due to failure to participate in disciplinary proceedings, affirming that a lack of engagement does not violate natural justice.

ORDER:

The petitioner joined the State Bank of Hyderabad as a Clerk-cum-

Cashier on 05.12.1980 and was subsequently promoted to officer cadre, and served as Manager (Inspection - Mobile) from May 2013 to October 2014. As per duty, he conducted audits across several branches. He was placed under suspension on 27.10.2014 for alleged irregularities in TA (Travel Allowance) claims, and a charge memo dated 11.05.2015 was issued with three charges: improper audit practices and wrongful TA claims of ₹3,22,361.Despite submitting his explanations, a disciplinary inquiry was initiated. Several procedural issues occurred during the inquiry: the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine key witnesses, was denied access to relevant documents, and was set ex parte on 18.02.2016 while hospitalized. Multiple representations requesting rescheduling of the inquiry and access to documents were denied.Subsequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 24.06.2016. He challenged the dismissal by filing a writ petition, i.e., W.P. No. 25447 of 2016on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to avail appellate remedy before the authorities. Thereafter, the appeal filed before the appellate authority was also dismissed; and the review petition before the reviewing authority was also dismissed thereby affirming the dismissal of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mrs. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. T.

Sasi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State Bank of India. Perused the record.

3. A counter affidavit is filed stating that the petitioner, a former Manager (Inspection), was suspended on 27-12-2014 due to irregularities in TA bills. A charge sheet was issued, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to respond. Upon dissatisfaction with his explanation, a domestic inquiry was initiated. It is also stated that the petitioner repeatedly sought postponements of both Preliminary and Regular Hearings, citing various health reasons over a span of several months. Despite being advised to undergo medical examination by the Bank’s doctor, he failed to do so. Hearings were deferred multiple times—six adjournments for Regular Hearings and three for Preliminary Hearings; that adequate opportunities were provided for the petitioner to present his case, including permission to visit relevant departments and branches, and access to documents. Yet, the petitioner either delayed or avoided proceedings, often refusing to receive official correspondence; that despite these opportunities, the petitioner and his defence representative did not effectively participate in the inquiry. Eventually, the Inquiry Authority, citing deliberate delay tactics, conducted the proceedings ex-parte and concluded that the charges were proved; that subsequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 24-06-2016. Though the petitioner approached the High Court, he was directed to exhaust the internal appellate remedy. His appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 06-04-2018, and a further review was also rejected on 04-12-2018, confirming that he had misused his position, submitted fake bills, and violated service regulations.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority (dated 24.06.2016), the Appellate Authority (dated 06.04.2018), and the Reviewing Authority (dated 04.12.2018) are illegal and arbitrary, as the enquiry proceedings were conducted ex parte without affording the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing; that the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the hearing on 18.02.2016 despite having knowledge that the petitioner was hospital