JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioner at the relevant time held the post of Senior Field Officer officiated as Incharge Branch Manager of Simaria Branch of the Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). He is aggrieved by the order of the Administrator of the Bank bearing Memo No. 10416 dated 7.9.1999, Annexure-21, whereunder he has been dismissed from service of the Bank holding him guilty of the charges levelled against him pursuant to a departmental proceeding. He is also aggrieved by the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Society bearing Memo No. 125/R.L. dated 9.4.2002, Annexure-23, whereunder Service Appeal No. 266 of 1999 filed against order dated 7.9.1999, Annexure-21 has been rejected. While the petitioner served as Incharge Branch Manager, Simaria Branch a fire broke out in the branch on 21.3.1987 around 3.30 a.m., the occurrence was reported to Simaria Police Station on 21.3.1987 at 5 a.m.-by the ad hoc accountant serving the branch and Simaria P.S. Case No. 32 of 1987 dated 21.3.1987 was registered for the offence under Sections 436, 379 I.P.C. against unknown. First Information Report is contained in Annexure-1 to this application. During investigation of Simaria P.S. Case No. 32 of 1987 petitioner was placed under suspension by the Managing Director of the Bank under office order bearing memo No. 7115 dated 6.4.1987, Annexure- 3 fixing his headquarter in the regional office of the Bank at Hazaribagh. On the representation of the petitioner dated 21.4.1987, Annexure-4 the headquarter of the petitioner was shifted under office order bearing No. 8395 dated 26.5.1987 from Hazaribagh regional office to the head office of the Bank at Patna. Police having investigated Simaria P.S. Case No. 32 of 1987 registered for the incident of fire in the branch in the night of 21.3.1987 submitted final form stating occurrence true but no clue, which was accepted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra under order dated 28.11.1989, Annexure-2B. In the light of the findings of the Investigating Agency petitioner submitted his further representation and on the representation of the petitioner his suspension was revoked by the Administrator of the Bank under office order bearing Memo No. 8469 dated 24.2.1992, Annexure-5 observing that the decision in regard to payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner for the suspension period shall be taken later. After reinstatement petitioner requested the authorities of the Bank for arrears of salary for the suspension period but it appears the request was not considered and petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 1050 of 1995(R) before the Ranchi Bench of this Court. Ranchi Bench of this Court under interim order dated 28.7.1995, Annexure-6 directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary and allowance for the suspension period i.e. 6.4.1987-24.2.1992 as also for promotion in the selection grade. 2. In the light of the interim order of the Ranchi Bench petitioner submitted his representation bearing letter No. 59 dated 7.8.1995, Annexure-6A requesting the authorities of the Bank to pay him arrears of salary for the suspension period i.e. 6.4.1987 to 24.2.1992 as also to consider his case for promotion, but the authorities of the Bank without considering the representation of the petitioner proceeded to serve on him show cause notice dated 2.9.1995, Annexure-7 alleging that he absented himself from Simaria Branch of the Bank from 16.3.1987 and that on account of his lack of control and supervision fire broke out in the branch for which he was also placed under suspension under office order dated 6.4.1987, Annexure-3 but he did not join the headquarter fixed during the period of suspension in the regional office of the Bank at Hazaribagh and submitted his joining on 21.4.1987 in the head office at Patna. It was also alleged in the show cause notice that while proceeding on leave petitioner did not make proper security arrangement in the branch as also failed to fix the roster of the night guards. Had he made proper security arrangement fire may not have broken in the branch which broke out on account of his negligence. It was also stated in the show cause that during inspection of the branch after the incident of fire hardly any remains of furniture etc. was available but from his residence which is situate adjoining the branch petitioner had removed all his belongings while he was proceeding on unauthorized absence, as such, it appears that petitioner had prior information about the branch being subjected to mischief of fire. was available but from his residence which is situate adjoining the branch petitioner had removed all his belongings while he was proceeding on unauthorized absence, as such, it appears that petitioner had prior information about the branch being subjected to mischief of fire. In paragraph-5 of the notice it was alleged that he did not cooperate in the investigation of the case, although was the controlling officer of the branch and should have come to the branch after the occurrence for assisting the investigation. In paragraph-6 of the notice it is alleged that relationship of petitioner with other employees of the branch was not cordial as he was in the habit of using foul language and threatening the employees serving the branch of lodging case against them as also was regularly marking them absent in the attendance register and stopping their salary. In paragraph-7 of the notice it is alleged that petitioner had taken his residence in the same premises in which the branch was situate and the carpet area of the branch and his residence was almost same but in collusion with the landlord, to harm the financial interest of the Bank he was paying Rs. 450/- per month as the rent of the branch premises and Rs. 150/- per month for the residence and thereby was causing financial loss to the Bank. In paragraph-8 of the notice petitioner is alleged to have violated the instructions of the superior officers of the Bank contained in letter dated 8.5.1989, 4.10.1986 and 23.12.1986. In paragraph-9 of the notice it is alleged that petitioner while proceeding on unauthorized absence also took the keys of the branch with him and did not come to the branch after the occurrence but sent the keys of the branch through a non-departmental person to the Block Development Officer, Simaria and not to the controlling officer, as such, it appears petitioner had information about the incident of fire from before. In paragraph-10 of the notice it is alleged that from perusal of the deposit-cum-expenditure register it appears that a sum of Rs. 60/- is due from the petitioner to the Simaria Branch of the Bank. In paragraph-10 of the notice it is alleged that from perusal of the deposit-cum-expenditure register it appears that a sum of Rs. 60/- is due from the petitioner to the Simaria Branch of the Bank. In paragraph-11 and 12 of the notice it is concluded that in view of the allegations contained in paragraphs-1 to 10 it appears that petitioner is an irresponsible, indisciplined and careless employee of the Bank who is guilty of the charge of unauthorized absence as also lacks etiquette and good behaviour and that he did not cooperate in the investigation of the criminal case, as such, he was aware of mischief of fire from before. Petitioner was called upon to submit his reply to the allegations contained in notice within 15 days, failing which appropriate order shall be passed as per the understanding of the authorities of the Bank. 3. In response to the show cause notice dated 2.9.1995, Annexure-7 petitioner filed his reply contained in letter No. 81 dated 30.9.1995, Annexure-8 stating that on 16.3.1987 he proceeded on leave after informing the District Manager, Hazaribagh and remained on leave until 15.4.1987 but during the leave period itself was placed under suspension under memo dated 6.4.1987 on false, vague charges of misconduct, although no charge-sheet was ever given to him and that his headquarter was fixed at Patna by the authorities of the Bank under order bearing Memo No. 8395 dated 26.5.1987. He further stated in paragraph-5 of the show cause reply that as no charge- sheet was given to him about the incident of fire even after passage of 5 years, on his representation the authorities of the Bank revoked his suspension under order dated 24.2.1992, Annexure-5 with observation that decision for payment of his salary for the suspension period shall be taken later. It was further stated in the show cause reply that when no decision was taken in regard to payment of arrears of salary of the petitioner for the suspension period he filed C.W.J.C. No. 1050 of 1995(R) for payment of arrears of salary for the suspension period. Ranchi Bench of this Court under orders dated 28.7.1995 adjourned the case for two months directing the Administrator of the Bank to dispose of the representation of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary for the suspension period. Ranchi Bench of this Court under orders dated 28.7.1995 adjourned the case for two months directing the Administrator of the Bank to dispose of the representation of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary for the suspension period. In the light of the interim order of the Ranchi Bench petitioner filed representation dated 7.8.1995 but instead of considering the representation of the petitioner he was served with show cause dated 2.9.1995, Annexure-7 for the same misconduct for which he was earlier suspended and the suspension was revoked under order dated 24.2.1992 without serving show cause/charge-sheet. Petitioner also stated in his reply that as the matter has become stale and he has not been given any documents it is not possible for him to submit any explanation at this belated stage. 4. Having considered the show cause reply of the petitioner dated 30.9.1995, Annexure-8 the Administrator of the Bank passed order dated 27.10.1995, Annexure-9. In paragraph-3 whereof the learned Administrator considered the statement of the petitioner that he proceeded on leave after informing the District Manager, Hazaribagh submitting application dated 14.3.1987 praying inter alia to grant him leave for the period between 14.3.1987-21.3.1987 and even if petitioner is allowed benefit of doubt for the period between 14.3.1987 to 21.3.1987 he having not filed any application for extension of leave for the period between 22.3.1987 till 14.4.1987 the charge of unauthorized absence is proved againt him. In paragraph-4 the Administrator found proved the charge that petitioner did not submit his joining during the period of suspension in compliance of the order dated 6.4.1987 in the regional office of the Bank at Hazaribagh but joined the headquarter at Patna on 21.4.1987, which is proved from perusal of his joining report itself. In paragraphs the Administrator found proved charge no. 3 that petitioner did not make any arrangement for security of the branch during the night by arranging the roster of night guards, had he made such arrangement, the mischief of fire may not have taken place in the branch. Such finding was recorded by the Administrator as petitioner did not choose to controvert the charge no. 3. In paragraph-6 the Administrator found that petitioner had removed all his belongings from his residence while he was proceeding on leave and thus he had prior information about the mischief of fire and he is held guilty of charge no. Such finding was recorded by the Administrator as petitioner did not choose to controvert the charge no. 3. In paragraph-6 the Administrator found that petitioner had removed all his belongings from his residence while he was proceeding on leave and thus he had prior information about the mischief of fire and he is held guilty of charge no. 4 as he has not refuted the said charge. In paragraph-7 petitioner was held guilty of charge no. 5 that after the mischief of fire he never visited the branch of the Bank as also did not assist the Investigating Agency in conducting the investigation. Such charge was also found proved on account of failure of the petitioner to refute the same. In paragraph- 8 the Administrator found the petitioner guilty of charge no. 6 that his relationship with other employees of the branch was not cordial as he always threatened his subordinates that he shall lodge case against them and was also marking them absent in the attendance register. Such charge was also found proved as petitioner did not refute the same. In paragraph-9 the Administrator found charge no. 7 also proved against the petitioner that he was paying excessive rent for the branch premises, such charge was also found proved as petitioner did not refute the same. In paragraph-10 charge no. 8 that petitioner was not obeying instructions of the superior officers contained in letter dated 8.5.1989, 4.10.1986 and 23.12.1986 was also found proved for the failure of the petitioner to refute the same. In paragraph-11 the Administrator found charge no. 9 proved against the petitioner that he is an irresponsible employee of the Bank who took the keys of the branch with him and sent the same on the date of occurrence through a non-departmental person. In paragraph-12 the Administrator granted the petitioner benefit of doubt in regard to charge no. 10 that petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 60/- to the branch. The Administrator having proved charge nos. 1 to 9 against the petitioner proceeded to punish him in paragraph-13 of the order dated 27.10.1995, Annexure-9 by withholding his two annual increment with cumulative effect with further direction that petitioner shall not be allowed any salary or leave for the period of unauthorized absence, suspension period beyond subsistence allowance as per Rules exceeding 75%. 5. 1 to 9 against the petitioner proceeded to punish him in paragraph-13 of the order dated 27.10.1995, Annexure-9 by withholding his two annual increment with cumulative effect with further direction that petitioner shall not be allowed any salary or leave for the period of unauthorized absence, suspension period beyond subsistence allowance as per Rules exceeding 75%. 5. Under orders dated 9.1.1996, Annexure-10 Ranchi Bench of this Court disposed of C.W.J.C. No. 1050 of 1995(R) directing the Bank to pay the petitioner arrears of salary including allowance etc. for the period of suspension between 6.4.1987 till 24.2.1992 after deducting subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner. In compliance of order dated 9.1.1996 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1050 of 1995(R), the Administrator of the Bank issued office order bearing Memo No. 13134 dated 14.2.1996, Annexure-11 releasing payment of arrears of salary and allowance to the petitioner for the period of suspension between 6.4.1987 till 24.2.1992. Such payment was released subject to the result of modification petition, which the Bank proposed to file against order dated 9.1.1996 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1050 of 1995(R). Petition to modify the order dated 9.1.1996 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1050 of 1995(R) was taken up for consideration on 12.7.1996 and was dismissed as not maintainable. The order dated 12.7.1996 is annexed with the petition as Annexure-12. 6. C.W.J.C. No. 3519 of 1995(R) filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment order dated 27.10.1995, Annexure-9 was disposed of under orders dated 12.1.1998, Annexure-15, perusal of order dated 12.1.1998 indicates that thereunder order dated 27.10.1995, Annexure-9 herein and Annexure-1 in the said writ case was quashed, however with liberty to the authorities of the Bank to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. In compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 12,1.1998, Annexure-15 the order dated 27.10.1995, Annexure-9 was cancelled under office order bearing Memo No. 17617 dated 20.2.1998, Annexure-16. Under office order bearing Memo No. 17779 dated 23.2.1998, Annexure-17 petitioner was served with another charge sheet dated 18,2.1998 recasting the earlier charges that during Hoii holidays he left the headquarter and went to his permanent home (Motihari) without arranging for roster of the night guards in Simaria Branch of the Bank and the branch suffered ablaze during the night of 20.3.1987 which was also reported in the newspaper, yet petitioner never thought it appropriate to pome to the branch after the mischief of fire. Maintenance of asset/ property of the branch is the responsibility of the Branch Manager and on account of irresponsible action of the petitioner fire broke out in the branch for which he is responsible and was placed under suspension under order No. 7115 dated 6.4,1987, Annexure-3 which could be served on him with great difficulty at Motihari on 15.4.1987. Being the Branch Manager he should have been present in the branch and for not being present in the branch he is held guilty. Second charge which was included in the charge-sheet is that before the Holi holidays itself petitioner removed his ail belongings from his residence which was adjoining the branch premises giving rise to the presumption that he had premonition about the occurrence and that when the branch premises was inspected by the Managing Director, Deputy Managing Director and Senior Regional Manager, Ranchi after the incident of fire in the branch, hardly any remains of furniture was found in the branch gives rise to the suspicion that before setting ablaze the branch theft was committed. It was also alleged in the said charge that while removing his belongings from his adjoining residence petitioner also removed the furniture and other belongings of the Branch and the Branch was set ablaze under a conspiracy for which he appears to be responsible. Third charge which was included in the charge-sheet is that petitioner did not come to Simaria branch premises during the period between 20.3.1987-16.8.1989 and did not cooperate in the investigation and apprehension of the accused persons and thereby did not discharge the duties of the Branch Manager. Charge No. 4 included in the charge-sheet is that petitioner did not maintain cordial relationship with his subordinates and encouraged them to fight amongst themselves as also used foul language and threatened to implicate them in cases as also to mark them absent in the attendance register, which is indicative of lack of cooperation affecting the morale of the employees of the branch. 5th charge alleged in the charge- sheet is that petitioner was having bad relationship with the landlord of the branch premises and that he fought with him on several occasions. 5th charge alleged in the charge- sheet is that petitioner was having bad relationship with the landlord of the branch premises and that he fought with him on several occasions. In this charge it is also stated that petitioner was having his residence in the same building in which the branch was housed and the carpet area of both the branch and his residence was the same but the branch was paying rent of Rs. 450/- per month and petitioner was paying rent of Rs. 150/- per month. 6th charge alleged against the petitioner is that he violated the orders of the superior officer dated 8.5.1989, 4.10.1986 and 23.12.1986. 7th charge alleged against the petitioner is that he was not taking the required interest in maintaining the books of account of the branch as also was violating the instructions in regard to discipline and that District Manager/Regional Manager were annoyed with his behaviour. 8th charge alleged against the petitioner in the charge- sheet is that he misbehaved with the public at large affecting the image of the branch/ bank. In this connection, complaint of M/s Parmanand Singh (landlord), Kamakhya Narayan Singh, President of 20 point committee and Chaturbhuj Singh Pramukh was referred to in the charge. 9th charge alleged against the petitioner is that petitioner was not even discharging the essential duties personally and was also entrusting the essential functions of the Branch Manager for being discharged by others. In this connection, it is said that when fire broke out in the branch he had taken the keys of the branch to his home which was sent to the Block Development Officer, Simaria through a person not connected with the branch. In this connection, it is also pointed out that before leaving the headquarter petitioner had neither taken permission from the controlling officer nor deposited the keys of the branch with him, the branch suffered mischief of fire and the property/assets of the branch was reduced to ashes, in the circumstances, he is responsible for his wavering behaviour. 10th charge alleged against the petitioner is that while he was transferred from Bundu Branch he did not handover charge in spite of clear instructions issued under letter dated 4.11.1996, 20.2.1997 and 21.4.1997. 10th charge alleged against the petitioner is that while he was transferred from Bundu Branch he did not handover charge in spite of clear instructions issued under letter dated 4.11.1996, 20.2.1997 and 21.4.1997. Office order dated 23.2.1998 containing the charge-sheet dated 18.2.1998, Annexure-17 was served on the petitioner under letter No. 17983 dated 28.2.1998, Annexure-17A calling upon him to furnish his show cause reply by 18.3.1998, failing which it will be understood that petitioner is not inclined to submit any reply. 8. In response to the instructions contained in letter dated 28.2.1998 Annexure- 17A petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 18.3.1998 and filed interim reply and prayed for two weeks time to file detailed reply as the charges were more than ten years old. In response to such request the Enquiry Officer allowed him time until 17.4.1998. Petitioner again appeared on 17.4.1998 and prayed for time on the ground of his illness, which was allowed and time until 19.5.1998 was granted for filing further reply. Petitioner appeared on 19.5.1998 but after being informed by the office assistant that the Enquiry Officer is away from office in connection with loan recovery he came back after submitting application dated 19.5.1998. The Enquiry Officer returned to his office on 25.5.1998 and called for the records as also enquired about the appearance of the petitioner on 19.5.1998, but his office assistant informed him that petitioner never appeared to participate in the enquiry on 19.5.1998. The Enquiry Officer remained occupied in connection with loan recovery, as such, he adjourned the enquiry proceeding to 6,7.1998. Information about the date fixed in the enquiry proceeding as 6.7.1998 is said to have been given to the petitioner under registered post. On 6.7.1998 petitioner neither appeared personally nor submitted his further defence together with the evidence refuting the charges levelled against him. In the circumstances, the Enquiry Officer took decision to proceed on the basis of his interim show cause filed, on 18.3.1998. Having perused the interim show cause Enquiry Officer concluded that similar charges were served on the petitioner in the year 1996, in response whereto petitioner filed his show cause reply before the then Administrator Sri R.N. Das on 27.1.1996. Even prior thereto in the year 1989 similar charges were served on the petitioner, in response whereto petitioner filed his show cause reply before the earlier Administrator Sri Basu. Even prior thereto in the year 1989 similar charges were served on the petitioner, in response whereto petitioner filed his show cause reply before the earlier Administrator Sri Basu. Sri Shyam Prasad Choudhary appeared to support the charge on behalf of the management and produced establishment file No. 373 of 1974- 75 and 185 of 1995-96 which was perused by the Enquiry Officer. 9. Having perused the interim show cause reply of the petitioner as also the two departmental file, the Enquiry Officer recorded finding against charge nos. 1 and 9 that petitioner submitted application bearing letter No. 82 dated 13.3.1987 to the Regional Manager, Hazaribagh through proper channel for availing Holi holidays during the period between 14.3.1987- 21.3.1987 away from the branch headquarter as he wanted to avail the said period to assist his daughter in appearing for matriculation examination, 1987 but before leaving the branch headquarter petitioner should have made adequate roster arrangement for night guards in the branch. In this connection, the Enquiry Officer also concluded that petitioner left to avail the Holi holidays with all his belongings thereby making his intentions clear that he had not to return to Simaria. The Enquiry Officer further held that on 20.3.1987 during the day hours, petitioner returned the keys, of the branch through his known person to the Block Development Officer, Simaria and not to any employee of the branch. According to the Enquiry Officer the keys of the branch should have been handed over by the petitioner to the employees of the branch and not to the Block Development Officer, Simaria. The Enquiry Officer further found that after the incident of fire in the branch in the night of 20.3.1987 petitioner should have come to the branch, his failure to come to the branch after the incident of fire, is indicative of his lack of sincerity towards the discharge of his duties. As regards charge no. 2 the Enquiry Officer concluded that petitioner was not responsible for removal of the furniture and other assets of the branch before the same was set ablaze. Charge no. 3 that petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation of the police case registered after the branch was set ablaze was proved by the Enquiry Officer as petitioner did not submit any written defence denying such charge. Charge no. 3 that petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation of the police case registered after the branch was set ablaze was proved by the Enquiry Officer as petitioner did not submit any written defence denying such charge. Charge No. 4 that petitioner was not maintaining good relationship with other employees of the branch was proved with reference to the report of the District Manager as also for failure of the petitioner to refute such allegation in his interim show cause reply. Charge Nos. 5, 6 and 7 was also proved as petitioner failed to refute those charges in his interim show cause reply. Charge No. 8 that petitioner was not maintaining good relationship with the local people including M/s Parmanand Singh the landlord of the branch premises, Kamakhya Narayan Singh, the President of 20 Point Committee and Chaturbhuj Singh Pramukh was not proved. Charge No.10 that petitioner delayed handing over charge of Bundu Branch has also been proved by the Enquiry Officer but while proving the said charge the Enquiry Officer has accepted the explanation of the petitioner that the delay was caused on account of delaying attitude of the Branch Manager, Ranchi Branch. The report of the Enquiry Officer dated 9.7.1998 was served on the petitioner under letter dated 6.8.1998, Annexure-18 granting him two weeks time to submit his comment over the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. 10. Petitioner having received letter dated 6.8.1998 of the Deputy Managing Director, Administration asking him to submit his comments against the finding of the Enquiry Officer as also letter of the Regional Manager dated 12.8.1998 submitted his comments to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer under letter dated 2.9.1998, Annexure-19 asserting that the charges alleged and the findings recorded against him are absolutely fafse and baseless and that on account of non-payment of salary from January 1996 till August 1997 and from May 1998 till the date of submission of comments he has suffered starvation, malnutrition and illness. Medical certificate whereof is contained in Annexures-2 to 4 to the comments and had to incur loan in connection with treatment in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna for the period between 1.6.1998-2.8.1998 for which he had applied for leave and that he had appeared to contest the charges on 19.5.1998 but as the Enquiry Officer was not present he submitted his application dated 19.5.1998 before the office assistant of the Enquiry Officer and as per instruction of the office assistant left the venue of enquiry to again appear on receipt of notice. The application dated 19.5.1998 is also enclosed with the comment. Perusal of letter dated 19.5.1998 indicates that petitioner disputed all the charges levelled against him stating that he had issued office order providing for roster duty of the night guards and the said order is available in the office order file of the branch. Petitioner also made specific request to the Enquiry Officer to verify the correctness of his statement by cafling for office order file of the branch. As regards incident of removal of furnitures of the branch by the petitioner he submitted that after the Holi festival the branch opened and functioned and if the furnitures were removed prior to Holi festival the employees of the branch who functioned in the branch after the Holi festival should have reported about the theft of branch furnitures before the branch was set ablaze in the night of 20.3.1987. As regards removal of his own belongings while proceeding for home before Holi festival petitioner submitted that he had his one attache case and bedding material which he brought alongwith him as he had to assist his daughter in appearing for matriculation examination. Petitioner categorically stated in his reply that besides the attache case and the bedding material he did not had any other belongings at his place of posting nor he ever used any. of the furnitures of the branch. As regards charge no. 3 petitioner submitted that he had no role to play in the investigation of the case which was the duty of the police authorities and he was never instructed by the departmental authorities to remain present during the investigation of the case. Petitioner also disputed charge no. of the furnitures of the branch. As regards charge no. 3 petitioner submitted that he had no role to play in the investigation of the case which was the duty of the police authorities and he was never instructed by the departmental authorities to remain present during the investigation of the case. Petitioner also disputed charge no. 4 that his behaviour with his subordinates was not cordial and pointed out that in the year 1985-86 with the able assistance of his subordinates he made substantially good recovery of the loan amount and was also rewarded with two months salary. He, however submitted that as he was trying to enforce discipline in the branch at times on account of administrative action friction arose between him and his subordinates which is quite normal feature in every office. As regards charge no. 5 petitioner submitted that in the earlier charge-sheet he is alleged to be in collusion.with the landlord but presently it is alleged that he is inimical to him. Petitioner, however, disputed both the charges stating that he is neither friendly nor inimical to the landlord and further stated that landlord was trying to realize the extortion amount from him as he was doing with other tenants. Petitioner further stated that landlord was also making pairvy for sanction of loan to his relatives. As regards charge no. 8 petitioner submitted that the allegation that he had violated the orders of his superior is not correct as he is not aware about any such order of the superior which he has violated. Petitioner further stated that had he violated any order of the superior, information to that effect should have been served on him but no such order was communicated. that he is violating the orders of the superiors. As regards charge no. 7 petitioner submitted that maintenance of account of the branch was being done by the accountant- cum-office assistant under his supervision and never any adverse remark was communicated to him that the accounts of the branch is not being maintained in the manner in which it is required to be maintained. Petitioner also disputed charge no. 8 that he was not maintaining cordial relationship with the local people as also his landlord M/s Parmanand Singh, Kamakhya Narayan Singh, President 20 Point Committee and Chaturbhuj Singh Pramukh. Petitioner also disputed charge no. Petitioner also disputed charge no. 8 that he was not maintaining cordial relationship with the local people as also his landlord M/s Parmanand Singh, Kamakhya Narayan Singh, President 20 Point Committee and Chaturbhuj Singh Pramukh. Petitioner also disputed charge no. 9 and stated that he had never given the keys of the branch to any unauthorized person. He disputed charge no. 10 that he delayed handing over charge of the post of Branch Manager, Bundu Branch and further clarified that delay was on account of authorities of the Ranchi Branch. In this connection, petitioner also submitted reminder letter dated 14.10.1996 which will explain the causes tor delay in effecting the charge of post of Branch Manager. 11. In the light of the contents of the show cause reply dated 19.5.1998 petitioner requested the Deputy Managing Director to exonerate him of the charges/findings recorded against him by the Enquiry Officer. Under letter No. 8568 dated 27.8.1998, Annexure-20 the Deputy Managing Director, Administration under orders of the Administrator again furnished the enquiry report on the petitioner calling upon him to submit second show cause reply. In response whereto petitioner filed further reply dated 8.10.1998, Annexure-20A in which he again reiterated the contents of his show cause reply dated 19.5.1998 annexed with his reply dated 2.9.1998 and further asserted that he had issued office order making roster arrangement, which can be verified from perusal of the office order file of the branch. He also stated that the two peons who were deputed to serve as night guards were also serving as such..Petitioner further stated that he was never instructed by any of the superior authorities to be present during the investigation of the criminal case lodged pursuant to the incident of fire in the branch. He further stated in the reply that he had come home during the Holi festival after informing the superior authorities in anticipation of grant of leave as he wanted to avail the said period for assisting his daughter in appearing for matriculation examination, 1987. He also stated in the reply that he had only one attache case and the bedding material at the place of his posting in Simaria, which he carried with him white he was coming home during Holi festival. He also stated in the reply that he had only one attache case and the bedding material at the place of his posting in Simaria, which he carried with him white he was coming home during Holi festival. He also stated that Simaria has been a den of extremists activity but on account of his administrative capability he made good recovery during the year 1985-86 and earned two months salary as reward. Having informed all concerned that he has to assist his daughter for appearance of matriculation examination, 1987 he left Simaria at the time of Holi festival to come back after ten days. He also stated that he was paying the same rent for his residential premises to the brother of the landlord which was being paid for the branch premises to the brother of the landlord who was the owner of the residential premises as the carpet area of the branch and the residential premises of the petitioner was almost the same. He categorically stated in paragraphs of the said reply that he never received any instruction contained in letter dated 8.5.1989, 4.10.1996 and 23.12.1986 and disputed the charge that he did not comply the orders of the superior. He also disputed that the Bank account was not being managed in the manner in which it was required to be maintained and submitted that every report which was required to be sent from the branch was being sent to all concerned in regular manner. He also stated that he has no difference with any of the local people. In paragraph-10 he clearly stated that delay in handing over charge of Bundu Branch was on account of the delay caused by the Branch Manager, Ranchi Branch as he was always trying to avoid the quick handing over of charge of the branch. 12. The Administrator having considered the office order dated 23.2.1998, Annexure-17 enclosing the charge-sheet dated 18.2.1998, the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 9.7.1998/7.8.1998 contained in the enquiry report, Annexure-18, the second show cause reply filed by the petitioner dated 2.9.1998, 8.10.1998 Annexures-19, 20A passed order dated 7.9.1999, Annexure-21 dismissing the petitioner from the service, of the Bank. Perusal of dismissal order dated 7.9.1999 indicates that thereunder the disciplinary authority discussed all the ten charges vis-a-vis the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In regard to charge no. Perusal of dismissal order dated 7.9.1999 indicates that thereunder the disciplinary authority discussed all the ten charges vis-a-vis the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In regard to charge no. 1 the disciplinary authority concluded that petitioner applied for leave during the period between 14.3.1987- 21.3.1987 as during the said period he had to assist his daughter in appearing in the matriculation examination, 1987 and he left Simaria after due information to the competent authority in anticipation of sanction of the leave but before leaving Simaria he did not make roster arrangement for the night guards and for his failure to make roster arrangement for the night guards fire broke out in the branch premises during the night of 20.3.1987 in which the records of the branch was destroyed affecting the interest of the Bank, the farmers whose account was with the branch. Petitioner also did not come to Simaria even after news report was published in the newspaper that Simaria Branch of the Bank suffered destruction on account of incident of fire, petitioner Is guilty of the charge of being an irresponsible Bank officer. While recording the aforesaid finding the learned disciplinary authority did not consider the specific averment made by the petitioner in his second show cause reply dated 19.5.1998 filed before the Enquiry Officer as also the two show cause reply dated 2.9.1998 and 3.10.1998 filed in response to second show cause notice that he had issued office order making roster arrangement and the office order was available in the office order file of the branch, in this connection, learned disciplinary authority also did not consider the averment of the petitioner that the two peons who were deputed to serve as night guards were serving the branch as night guards in the light of the roster arrangement made under the office order. The disciplinary authority while holding the petitioner guilty of charge no.1 observed that in the second show cause reply itself petitioner admitted that he left Simaria in anticipation of the leave being granted and that he should not have left Simaria until the leave was sanctioned. The disciplinary authority while holding the petitioner guilty of charge no.1 observed that in the second show cause reply itself petitioner admitted that he left Simaria in anticipation of the leave being granted and that he should not have left Simaria until the leave was sanctioned. In this connection, learned disciplinary authority did not notice the finding, of the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 9.7.1998 that petitioner left Simaria after submitting application bearing letter No. 82 dated 13.3.1987 to the Regional Manager, Hazaribagh through proper channel requesting him to grant leave for the period between 14.3.1987-21.3.1987 as he had to assist his daughter in appearance of matriculation examination, 1987 and that Regional Manager, Hazaribagh was also not available as he left for Sonepur two days earlier. In this connection, learned disciplinary authority also did not notice the findings of Sri R.N. Das, the then Administrator recorded in paragraph-3 of order dated 27.10.1995 that petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt for his absence from Simaria during the period between 14.3.1987- 21.3.1987. The disciplinary authority while holding the petitioner guilty of charge no. 2 that he is responsible for theft of furniture and other assets of the branch before it was subjected to mischief of fire during the night of 20.3.1987 failed to notice the fact that petitioner left Simaria on 13.3.1987 to avail the Holi festival at his Motihari home, the branch transacted business after the Holi festival and in case petitioner had removed the fumiture(s) while leaving Simaria on 13.3.1987 the employees of the Branch who served the branch after the Holi festival should have noticed removal of furnitures from the branch premises and reported the matter to the police about the theft of furnitures from the branch before it was subjected to mischief of fire on the night of 20.3.2007 (s/c1987 ?). While recording the findings with respect to charge nos. While recording the findings with respect to charge nos. 1 and 2 the disciplinary authority appears to be oblivious of the fact that Simaria was the den of extremist activity and such fact was being reported from time to time by the predecessors of the petitioner as also by the petitioner in his show cause reply and the extremist elements may have been responsible for the theft and mischief of fire in the branch, which is also established from the police report submitted after investigation of Simaria P.S. Case No. 32 of 1987 as police having investigated Simaria P.S. Case No. 32 of 1987 found the occurrence to be true but no clue and the police report was also accepted by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra under his orders dated 28.11.1989 Annexure-2B. While holding the petitioner guilty of charge no. 3 that he did not assist the police in investigation of the case during the period 20.3.1987 till 16.8.1989 the disciplinary authority failed to notice the fact that investigation is the domain of the Investigating Agency which never required the presence of the petitioner during the investigation of the case to record his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and no such instruction was also issued by the superior authorities of the Bank asking the petitioner to record his statement before the Investigating Officer, in the circumstances, the finding that petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation of the case appears to be misconceived. While holding the petitioner guilty of charge no. 4 that he was not maintaining cordial relation with his subordinates the disciplinary authority has relied on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the report of the District Manager but while relying on such report the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority had not ensured that the copy of such report was served on the petitioner, further while accepting such finding the disciplinary authority has not considered the specific defence of the petitioner that he had cordial relationship with all his subordinates serving the branch and with their assistance he made very good recovery during the year 1985-86 and was also rewarded with two months salary, in the circumstances, there is no difficulty in concluding that finding that petitioner is guilty of charge no. 4 is wholly misconceived. While holding the petitioner guilty of charge no. 4 is wholly misconceived. While holding the petitioner guilty of charge no. 5 the disciplinary authority observed that petitioner did not dispute the said charge in his written defence, however the disciplinary authority concedes that petitioner disputed the said charge in his second show cause reply but held him guilty of the charge as he did not dispute the charge in his written defence. In this connection, it may be pointed out that in the interim show cause (defence) petitioner did not dispute the said charge but in his defence dated 19.5.1998 which was also enclosed with second show cause reply dated 2.9.1998 petitioner disputed the charge and stated that in the earlier charge-sheet he was charged of being in collusion with the landlord but in the subsequent charge- sheet he is being alleged to be inimical to him, however he made categorical statement that he was paying the same rent of Rs. 450/- for his residential premises as the carpet area of his residential premises and the branch premises was the same. Such defence having not been considered by the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority while recording the findings of guilt with respect to charge no. 5, finding recorded in respect to charge no. 5 appears to be wholly misconceived. Finding of the disciplinary authority with regard to charge no. 6 that petitioner did not obey the instruction of his superior contained in letter dated 8.5.1989 also appears to be misconceived as petitioner categorically stated in his second show cause reply that the letters referred to in charge no. 6 were never served on him, in the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to have relied on the receipt showing service of letters referred to in the charge. The authorities having not relied on the receipt showing service of letters referred to in the charge it cannot be presumed that petitioner was ever served with the instructions contained in the letters which he is said to have violated. While holding the petitioner guilty of charge no. The authorities having not relied on the receipt showing service of letters referred to in the charge it cannot be presumed that petitioner was ever served with the instructions contained in the letters which he is said to have violated. While holding the petitioner guilty of charge no. 7 that he was not ensuring maintenance of accounts of the branch, the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority have failed to consider the defence of the petitioner that the accounts of the branch was being maintained by the accountant-cum-office clerk under his guidance and supervision and the different reports which were required to be sent from the branch to the head office, regional office was always being sent. No such complaint was ever received by the petitioner that he is neither maintaining the accounts of the branch nor submitting the reports to the head, regional office of the Bank. The disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty of charge no. 9 that he was not discharging his duties personally and in this connection relied on the fact that petitioner sent the keys of the branch through a person who was not connected with the branch. While recording such finding the disciplinary authority did not notice the defence of the petitioner taken in paragraph-9 of second show cause reply dated 8.10.1998, Annexure-20A that while leaving Simaria on 13.3.1987 petitioner had given the keys of the branch to the office assistant-cum-accountant as the District Manager had left Hazaribagh for Sonepur even two days earlier than the petitioner and the fact that after Holi festival the branch functioned and transacted business before it was subjected to mischief of fire. For the failure of the disciplinary authority to consider the specific defence of the petitioner contained in paragraph-9 of the second show cause reply dated 8.10.1998, the finding recorded in respect to charge no, 9 appears to be misconceived. Finding of the disciplinary authority with regard to charge no. For the failure of the disciplinary authority to consider the specific defence of the petitioner contained in paragraph-9 of the second show cause reply dated 8.10.1998, the finding recorded in respect to charge no, 9 appears to be misconceived. Finding of the disciplinary authority with regard to charge no. 10 that petitioner delayed the handing over charge of the Bundu Branch also appears to be misconceived as while recording such finding the disciplinary authority did not consider the specific defence of the petitioner taken in paragraph 10 of his second show cause reply dated 8.10.1998 that it was the Branch Manager, Ranchi Branch of the Bank who was responsible for delay in handing over charge of the Bundu Branch by the petitioner and for such non-consideration the findings of disciplinary authority in respect to charge no. 10 also appears to be misconceived. 13. Highlighting the aspects noted above in paragraph-12 petitioner challenged the order of the disciplinary authority dated 7.9.1999, Annexure-21 by filing service appeal No. 266 of 1999 which was also dismissed under orders dated 9.4.2002, Annexure-23, perusal whereof indicates that the. appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that petitioner proceeded to Motihari in anticipation of sanction of leave and also carried the keys of the branch with him, which was sent by the petitioner to the Block Development Officer, Simaria after he learnt about the mischief of fire in the branch. It appears while dismissing the appeal the learned Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna failed to notice the specific case of the petitioner that before proceeding on leave he submitted application dated 13.3.1987 to the District Manager. Hazaribagh throuqh proper channel for availing leave during the period between 14.3.1987-21.3.1987 for assisting his daughter in appearing for matriculation examination, 1987 and the fact that District Manager left Hazaribagh for his home at Sonepur even two days earlier than the petitioner as also the fact that while leaving Simaria petitioner had given the keys of the branch to the office assistant-cum- accountant as he was scheduled to come back after availing the leave between 14.3.1987-21.3.1987 and the fact that branch functioned and transacted business after the Holi festival and before it was subjected to the incident of fire on 21.3.1987 around 3.30 A.M. 14. One another aspect which is relevant but has not been taken note by either the disciplinary or the appellate authority and is required to be considered that during the enquiry proceeding pursuant to charge-sheet dated 18.2.1998 petitioner was not paid salary between May 1998 till the submission of the second show cause reply dated 2.9.1998, Annexure-19 as also prior thereto between January 1996 to August, 1997 and had to suffer starvation, mainutrition and illness during the period between 1.6.1998 to 2.8.1998 which is evident from Annexures-2 to 4 appended with the second show cause reply of the petitioner dated 2.9.1998. Result being that he had no opportunity to appropriately defend himself. Further notice fixing 6.7.1998 as the date of enquiry was also not received by the petitioner as on that date he was under treatment in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna and such fact, although stated in the second show cause reply dated 2,9.1998 has not been accepted by the authorities of the Bank, although receipt showing service of notice fixing 6.7.1998 as the date of enquiry has not been produced either before the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority or even before this Court in the counter affidavit. In the circumstances, there is no difficulty in concluding that petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself. 15. Counsel for the Bank, however explained the aforesaid aspects discussed above in paragraphs-12 to 14 and submitted that in view of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority this Court should not interfere in the matter and the writ petition be dismissed. 16. Having perused the dismissal, appellate order dated 7.9.1999, 9.4.2002, Annexures-21, 23, I am of the view that both the disciplinary, appellate authority failed to consider the aspects discussed by me in paragraphs-12 to 14 above and on account of their failure to consider and discuss the aspects noticed by me, the decision making process undertaken by the disciplinary, appellate authority suffers from the vice of not considering the relevant aspects, which are germane for a just decision in the matter and on account of failure to consider the relevant aspects, the impugned orders dated 7.9.1999, 9.4.2002, Annexures-21, 23 passed by the disciplinary, appellate authority suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is fit to be quashed, which is accordingly, quashed. 17. 17. While concluding his argument counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of this writ application petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 5.1.2008 and the fact that the branch suffered mischief of fire on 20.3.1987 the matter should be given a decent burial with direction to the authorities of the Bank to pay the petitioner arrears of salary for the period during which he has not been paid his salary till the date of superannuation. 18. The mischief of fire took place in the branch on 20.3.1987 more than 23 years earlier, petitioner was served with first show cause notice on 2.9.1995, Annexure-7 after Ranchi Bench of this Court passed orders dated 28.7.1995, Annexure-6 directing the Bank to consider his request for payment of arrears of salary for the suspension period i.e. 6.4.1987-24.2.1992. The matter has travelled to this Court not once but twice earlier. The orders are dated 9.1.1996, 12.1.1998 contained in Annexures-10, 15 to this aplication. Bank never produced any witness in the proceeding to dispute the case of the petitioner that while leaving Simaria on 13.3.1987 petitioner did not apply for causaf leave with information to all concerned about his leave and had handed over the keys of the branch to the office assistant-cum-accountant of the branch who opened, transacted business in the branch after Holi festival and before it was subjected to mischief of fire on 20.3.1987 and that Simaria remained infested with extremist elements, the police after investigation submitted final form in the criminal case finding the incident of fire true but no clue. Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 5.1.2008, in consideration of his retirement and the aspects noted above in paragraphs-12 to 14, 16, it is deemed expedient to direct that the matter be given a decent burial albeit after paying the petitioner arrears of salary from the date of dismissal till the date of his superannuation coupled with the terminal benefits. 19. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed.