against the petitioner, challenging which a representation dated 6.9.2008 was filed. The enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 21.1.2010 who had submitted the enquiry report dated 29.11.2010. Against the punishment proposed vide order dated 21.7.2011, a detailed representation dated 12.8.2011 was filed by the petitioner. However, without addressing the contention of the petitioner therein, order dated 7.9.2011 directing for removal of the petitioner from service with superannuation benefits had been passed. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which was also rejected by the order impugned dated 21.11.2011, hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the action of the respondent in issuance of the chargesheet after a period of 15 years from 1993-2008 itself shows that the initiation of departmental proceeding is a result of afterthought. The criminal case is still pending against the petitioner. The gross delay on the part of the respondent bank in initiation of departmental proceeding is unexplained. The Cash box which was material evidence was never placed before the enquiry officer received nor it was examined during the course of enquiry. The enquiry report is, thus, speculative and vague. No reason of implication of the petitioner has been given in the enquiry report when the Accountant, C.P. Singh, another accomplice who was in joint custody of the cash was awarded minor penalty. Non supply of relevant material, relied in the enquiry report caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has, thus, been discriminated in the matter of departmental enquiry conducted with regard to shortage of cash in the strong room.
