Judgment

Kirpal, J.-In these two appeals the common question which arises for consideration is that when the inquiry officer, during the course of disciplinary proceedings, comes to a conclusion that all or some of the charges alleging misconduct against an official are not proved then can the disciplinary authority differ from that and give a con­trary finding without affording any opportunity to the delinquent officer.

2. The respondents in these two appeals, namely, Shri Kunj Behari Misra and Shri Shanti Prasad Goel were working in the appellant bank in the Hazratganj Branch, Lucknow, as Assistant Managers. On 10th November, 1981 on physical verification of the currency chest a short­age of Rs. 1 lac currency notes was found. Thereafter first informa­tion report was lodged and disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the appellant bank against both the respondents, who were also placed under suspension. Six charges were framed against Misra while the charge sheet served on Goel contained seven charges. The disciplinary authority did not conduct the inquiry itself and an inquiry officer was appointed to hold the inquiry.

3. The inquiry officer gave the respondents opportunity of b