JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—We have heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Manisha Ambwani holding brief of Sri Vipin Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record. As pleadings are complete with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the petition is being finally decided. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who was posted as Assistant Manager (Law) at Zonal Office, Gorakhpur of State Bank of India, has assailed the validity of the orders passed against him in three separate disciplinary proceedings arising out of charge-sheets dated 1.6.1996, 10.3.1998 and 16.9.2002. In respect of the charge-sheet dated 1.6.1996, a penalty of bringing down pay-scale by three stages for two years was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 8.1.2002 whereas in respect of the charge-sheet dated 10.3.1998, a penalty of bringing down pay-scale by one stage for two years was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 5.5.2001. In respect of the charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002, punishment of removal from service was inflicted vide order dated 18.6.2005. From Annexure CA-15, which has not been disputed in para 23 of the rejoinder affidavit, it appears that no appeal was filed against the order dated 8.1.2002 whereas an appeal preferred against the order dated 5.5.2001, was rejected by order dated 31.10.2001. However, a combined review petition was preferred against the orders dated 8.1.2002 and 5.5.2001, which was rejected by order dated 16.4.2005. As far as the order of removal from service is concerned it was challenged through an appeal filed on 27.6.2005, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.8.2005. Thereafter a review petition was filed on 17.8.2005 even before passing of the appellate order dated 26.8.2005. Later, on communication of the appellate order, a fresh review was preferred on 12.10.2005 as also a representation to the Central Board, on 1.11.2005, which were rejected by order dated 8.9.2006 passed by the review committee thereby upholding the order of removal from service. 3. Seeking quashing of : (a) the order dated 8.9.2006 passed by the review committee; (b) the appellate order dated 26.8.2005 passed by the Chief General Manager; (c) the removal order dated 18.6.2005 passed by the General Manager-II/Appointing Authority; (d) the orders dated 5.5.2001 and 8.1.2002 as also the enquiry proceedings and the charge-sheets dated 1.6.1996, 21.8.1998 and 16.9.2002 with prayer for other ancillary reliefs, the present petition has been filed. 4. 4. Prior to this petition, the petitioner had filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48974 of 2002 whereby the petitioner had challenged the suspension order dated 16.7.2001; the charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002 (which was enclosed as Annexure 9 to the said writ petition); the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge-sheet dated 21.8.1998; the charge-sheet dated 1.6.1996 and all proceedings pursuant thereto; with a prayer that the respondents be directed not to interfere in the smooth functioning of the petitioner as Assistant Manager (Law). 5. The Writ Petition No. 48974 of 2002 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.1.2005. It would be useful to reproduce certain observations and directions made/ given by this Court in its order dated 19.1.2005, which are as follows:- “The annexure 12 to the writ petition is a comparative chart of the charges mentioned in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd charge-sheet. A perusal of these charges would indicate that in the 3rd charge-sheet certain charges were not the subject matter of the first two charge-sheets, at least directly or specifically. We find from the charges in the 3rd charge-sheet, that one of the charges is that the petitioner lodged an F.I.R. with the police at Gorakhpur against different functionaries of the bank. In reply to a question, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this F.I.R. has been lodged because certain deductions were made from the emoluments of the petitioner. This action on part of the petitioner, who is an Assistant Law Officer, itself dissuades us from exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the suspension order or the 3rd charge-sheet in our discretionary jurisdiction. However, the petitioner was last suspended on 16.7.2001. The period of suspension has been sufficiently long. Hoping that the petitioner has now learned his lesson and will mend his ways in future, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: Copies of the appellate order in respect of first two charge-sheet will be sent to the petitioner by the bank under registered cover at the address of the petitioner mentioned in this writ petition within one month from today. 2. The review application in respect of the first two charge-sheets will be disposed of by the bank within three months from today. 3. 2. The review application in respect of the first two charge-sheets will be disposed of by the bank within three months from today. 3. Since the reply of the petitioner to the 3rd charge-sheet has already been furnished, therefore, the inquiry in respect of the 3rd charge-sheet will be completed by the respondent bank within three months from today. 4. After the inquiry is concluded within the time aforesaid, the Disciplinary Authority will take its decision with respect to the inquiry report within the next two months after the usual procedure of the furnishing copies of the inquiry report to the petitioner and considering his reply/objections, if any. All notices with regard to the disciplinary inquiry and the communication of the inquiry officer’s report and of the disciplinary order, if any, will be made by registered post at the address of the petitioner mentioned in this writ petition. 5. If there are any arrears of the subsistence allowance till date, they will be paid by an account payee cheque by the respondent bank sent to the petitioner in the name of the petitioner under registered cover at the address of the petitioner given in the writ petition. 6. If the petitioner is required to attend the inquiry being held at Varanasi from his present place of attachment/posting at Gorakhpur, he will be paid traveling expenses as per rules by an “Account Payee Cheque” on each date as soon as he turns up for hearing.” 6. A perusal of the inquiry report (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) as also the minutes of the inquiry proceedings dated 10.1.2005 (Annexure RA-2) reveals that vide registered letter No. R-II/FC 618 dated 29.12.2004, the petitioner was advised to participate in the inquiry proceedings of the date 10.1.2005 pertaining to charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002. The said registered letter returned undelivered, therefore, it was presumed that the same was duly served on the petitioner. The minutes further reveal that earlier also letters were sent to the petitioner under registered post but the petitioner did not turn up to participate in the inquiry proceedings. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer thought it expedient to proceed ex parte against the petitioner in the matter of charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002. The minutes further reveal that earlier also letters were sent to the petitioner under registered post but the petitioner did not turn up to participate in the inquiry proceedings. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer thought it expedient to proceed ex parte against the petitioner in the matter of charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002. The minutes further reveal that as the charge-sheeted officer did not appear for pleading not guilty, the Enquiry Officer assumed that the charge-sheeted officer had pleaded not guilty and, as such, it directed the Presenting Officer to proceed. It would be useful to quote the aforesaid decision of the Inquiry Officer, which is as follows: “As the Charged Officer is absent, the I.A. Assume the role of the Charged Officer, during the conduct of this entire proceedings and does not plead guilty. At the outset, the P.O. is advised to present his authority for participating in the enquiry, as such.” The Enquiry Officer thereafter proceeded to enquire whether the charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002 was served on the petitioner or not. Upon query, it was found that charge-sheet was served on the petitioner through registered post and an attempt was also made to serve the charge-sheet personally and since in Writ Petition No. 48974 of 2002, the petitioner had, in paragraph 31 of the rejoinder-affidavit, stated that he does not dispute the receipt of the charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002 and the said rejoinder-affidavit was sworn on 31.3.2003, the Enquiry Officer requested the Presenting Officer to present the documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom the charges were proposed to be proved. The minutes further indicate that the Presenting Officer had produced the documents and they were marked as Exihibits. The papers and the documents were taken on record and 28.1.2005 was fixed as the next date for the enquiry and in the meantime the charge-sheeted officer (the petitioner) was permitted to inspect and take notes of the documents listed and submit a list of documents and witnesses that he wants for enquiry. 7. A perusal of the enquiry report reveals that the proceedings dated 10.1.2005 along with prosecution documents and letter authorizing Sri M.C. Mishra to present the case on behalf of the Bank were forwarded to the charge-sheeted officer vide letter dated 11.1.2005 thereby advising him that the next date of hearing would be 28.1.2005. 7. A perusal of the enquiry report reveals that the proceedings dated 10.1.2005 along with prosecution documents and letter authorizing Sri M.C. Mishra to present the case on behalf of the Bank were forwarded to the charge-sheeted officer vide letter dated 11.1.2005 thereby advising him that the next date of hearing would be 28.1.2005. The enquiry report further reveals that the charge-sheeted officer presented himself before the enquiry on 28.1.2005 and submitted a death certificate regarding demise of his mother on 19.8.2004, so as to justify his non-participation in the proceedings held on 10.9.2004, 28.9.2004 and 10.1.2005. The petitioner also presented an unsigned letter dated 27.12.2004 as an excuse for not attending the inquiry on 10.1.2005. However, on 28.1.2005, a prayer was made for adjournment on the ground that his Writ Petition No. 48974 of 2002 has been decided by the High Court, which had direct bearing on the charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002 and, therefore, the enquiry proceedings be adjourned awaiting certified copy of the order passed by the High Court. On the request of the petitioner, the enquiry was adjourned to 25.2.2005 and its information was forwarded to the charge-sheeted officer vide letter dated 28.1.2005 with direction to participate in the proceedings slated for 25.2.2005 and in the meanwhile the petitioner was requested to go through the prosecution documents already forwarded to him. 8. The enquiry report further reveals that on 25.2.2005, the charge-sheeted officer appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted a photocopy of the High Court’s order dated 19.1.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 48974 of 2002. It also reveals that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Presenting Officer presented a banker’s cheque of Rs. 1300/- to the charge-sheeted officer (the petitioner) during the course of the proceedings dated 25.2.2005 representing the traveling expenses from the place of posting/attachment i.e. Gorakhpur to Varanasi, which the charge-sheeted officer declined to accept for want of supporting letter. It appears that as the charge-sheeted officer refused to accept the cheque, the Enquiry Officer returned the cheque to the Presenting Officer. 9. It further appears that during the course of enquiry held on 25.2.2005, the charge-sheeted officer repudiated the service of charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002 on the ground that it was not “served properly”. It appears that as the charge-sheeted officer refused to accept the cheque, the Enquiry Officer returned the cheque to the Presenting Officer. 9. It further appears that during the course of enquiry held on 25.2.2005, the charge-sheeted officer repudiated the service of charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002 on the ground that it was not “served properly”. To this objection, the Presenting Officer submitted that in paragraph 14 of his Writ Petition No. 48974 of 2002, the issuance of the charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002 was acknowledged and the said charge-sheet was brought on record as Annexure 9 to the writ petition. On the aforesaid basis as also the fact that the charge-sheet was sent through registered post at the last known address of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer rejected the objection with regards to service of the charge-sheet and decided to proceed with the enquiry and adjourned the case to 26.2.2005. The enquiry report suggests that the charge-sheeted officer signed the minutes under protest on the ground that money was not provided in terms of High Court directions even though the fact was that he declined to receive the banker’s cheque representing traveling expenses. 10. Thereafter, the charge-sheeted officer (the petitioner) absented from the inquiry proceedings of the date 26.2.2005. As there was a direction of this Court to conclude the enquiry proceedings within three months, the enquiry proceeded on 26.2.2005 and was adjourned to 10.3.2005. The enquiry report reveals that the proceedings dated 25.2.2005 and 26.2.2005 were forwarded to the charge-sheeted officer vide letter dated 1.3.2005 under registered cover thereby informing that the next date of hearing would be 10.3.2005 at the Zonal Office, Gorakhpur with direction to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry with his defence representative, if any, failing which ex parte proceedings would continue. 11. A perusal of the inquiry report further reveals that in the enquiry proceeding of the date 28.1.2005 and 25.2.2005, which was attended by the petitioner, never any objection was raised with regards to the documents relied on by the prosecution. The charge-sheeted officer also failed to take any step for inspecting the documents and taking notes therefrom before 10.3.2005 i.e. the date of next hearing. The charge-sheeted officer also failed to take any step for inspecting the documents and taking notes therefrom before 10.3.2005 i.e. the date of next hearing. In fact, instead of attending the enquiry proceedings on 10.3.2005, the petitioner sent a letter to the Enquiry Officer advising him to surrender before the police of Police Station Cantt, Varanasi for the reason that he impersonated the charged officer in the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner also sent a representation (a copy of which is enclosed at page 196 of the writ petition), on 8.3.2005, to the Deputy General Manager thereby enclosing a copy of the complaint letter dated 25.2.2005 allegedly sent to the police, with a prayer that the enquiry be stopped and a fresh Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer be appointed for the enquiry inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer had, by impersonation, assumed the role of charged officer since 10.1.2005. 12. The Enquiry Officer, in absence of any order from the competent authority, did not refrain from proceeding further with the enquiry, however, the enquiry was adjourned to 11.3.2005 for verification of documents. As the charge-sheeted officer failed to turn up despite notice in writing, the enquiry proceedings continued ex parte and the documents produced by the prosecution were duly proved by the witnesses PW1 and P.W.2, who proved the documents on the basis of record available. Thereafter the prosecution case was closed and the date 21.3.2005 was fixed thereby giving one more opportunity to the charged officer for submitting his defence. Copies of the proceedings dated 10.3.2005 and 11.3.2005 together with charged officer’s undated letter including his representation dated 25.2.2005 addressed to the Station Officer, Cantt, Varanasi were forwarded to the charged officer at the given address thereby informing him about the next date of hearing i.e. 21.3.2005. It appears that on 14.3.2005, the Enquiry Officer received an envelope from the petitioner which contained fax sending report dated 10.1.2001; a medical certificate dated 9.3.2005 purportedly issued by Dr. Rajendra Kumar advising the charged officer three days treatment and rest with effect from 9.3.2005; and a letter dated 10.3.2005 enclosing the said medical certificate with a request to suspend the enquiry proceedings and to hold the same on 1.4.2005 or thereafter. 13. Rajendra Kumar advising the charged officer three days treatment and rest with effect from 9.3.2005; and a letter dated 10.3.2005 enclosing the said medical certificate with a request to suspend the enquiry proceedings and to hold the same on 1.4.2005 or thereafter. 13. The Enquiry Officer found that the fax sending report was dated 10.1.2001, much before the issuance of the charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002, therefore, there was no basis to believe that the medical certificate dated 9.3.2005 was forwarded/sent through FAX. Moreover, the medical certificate was received much after the date of the enquiry therefore no cognizance of it was taken. The enquiry thus proceeded on 21.3.2005. The charged officer remained absent on that date, accordingly, the enquiry proceeding was concluded ex parte and the minutes of the enquiry proceeding dated 21.3.2005 along with the fax sending report dated 10.1.2001 was forwarded to the charged officer by registered letter dated 23.3.2005 with advise to submit written brief by 10.4.2005. As by 10.4.2005, no written brief was submitted, the enquiry report was prepared and forwarded to the appointing/disciplinary authority. In his report the enquiry officer held the charges as proved and he also codified the facts and circumstances justifying ex parte conclusion of the enquiry. Thereafter the appointing authority vide letter dated 26.5.2005 invited comments from the petitioner on the enquiry report, which was responded by the petitioner vide representation dated 6.6.2006. 14. In his report the enquiry officer held the charges as proved and he also codified the facts and circumstances justifying ex parte conclusion of the enquiry. Thereafter the appointing authority vide letter dated 26.5.2005 invited comments from the petitioner on the enquiry report, which was responded by the petitioner vide representation dated 6.6.2006. 14. With his representation, the petitioner had enclosed certain documents, which, as per Annexure 11 to the writ petition, are as follows: (a) A letter dated 8.3.2005 addressed to the Deputy General Manager for stopping of enquiry and removal of the Enquiry Officer; (b) A letter dated 8.4.2005 written by the Deputy General Manager to the petitioner thereby turning down his request made vide letter dated 8.3.2005 (supra); (c) Letter dated 20.3.2005 addressed to the Chief General Manager as well as to other high ranking officers of the bank stating therein that three officers fabricated false ex parte enquiry proceedings against him and denied adjournment of enquiry on 10.3.2005 and 11.3.2005 for which they were liable to be punished under Sections 406, 409, 420, 191, 192 and 193 I.P.C with a prayer that these three officers may be arrested and that enquiry proceedings of 10.3.2005 and 11.3.2005 be quashed and that a fresh enquiry be ordered; (d) A representation dated 7.4.2005 addressed to the Enquiry Officer with a prayer that the enquiry carried out by him be declared null and void and that opportunity be given to the petitioner for personal hearing; (e) A letter dated 13.4.2005 sent by the Enquiry Officer, S.P. Gaur, to the petitioner thereby refusing to take cognizance of his application dated 7.4.2005 on the ground that enquiry proceedings stood concluded on 21.3.2005 with liberty to the petitioner to submit his written brief by 10.4.2005, which he failed to do so; (f) A letter dated 19.3.2005 submitted by the charge-sheeted officer addressed to the Enquiry Officer giving a list of witnesses, which he proposed to examine in defence, along with a list of documents that he wanted to produce in defence; (g) A letter dated 23.3.2005 written by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner thereby enclosing copies of proceedings dated 21.3.2005 and also advising him that the petitioner’s letter dated 19.3.2005 was received much after the close of enquiry proceedings on 21.3.2005 and with further advise to the petitioner to submit written brief by 10.4.2005; (h) An undated letter written by the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer requesting him to surrender before the police of police station Cantt, Varanasi for the offenses that he allegedly committed as mentioned in Tahrir of 25.2.2005 with request to stop further proceedings in the matter scheduled to be held on 10.3.2005; and (i) An undated letter purportedly written by the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer along with medical certificate disclosing that the petitioner was not well. 15. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 18.6.2005, after considering the representation of the petitioner and noticing the entire evidences on record, not only affirmed the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the charges were proved against the petitioner but also approved the conclusion of enquiry ex parte. It recorded that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer in violation of Rule 50(1), 50(4), 50(5) and 50(9) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules and after considering the gravity of misconduct proved against the petitioner ordered removal of the petitioner from service in terms of Rule 67(i) of State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules with further direction that no salary and allowances, increments, etc. would be paid to the petitioner for the entire period of suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid/payable till the date of the service of the order. 16. The appellate authority also, after examining the contentions raised by the petitioner in his appeal, dismissed the appeal by its order dated 26.8.2005. Challenging the appellate order, a review petition was preferred by the petitioner which was rejected vide order dated 8.9.2006. The petitioner had also claimed for subsistence allowance till the disposal of his appeal/review petition, which was denied by the Reviewing Authority on the ground that service rules permitted payment of subsistence allowance only up to the date of the order of removal. It was observed that since the petitioner was removed from service by the order dated 18.6.2005, no subsistence allowance was payable to him thereafter. 17. It appears that before the rejection of the review petition could be communicated to the petitioner, he filed a Writ Petition No. 50647 of 2006, which was disposed of by order dated 13.9.2006 thereby giving direction to the Reviewing Authority to conclude the hearing on the review petition after giving opportunity to the petitioner as also to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order with further direction that till communication of the order passed on the review petition, the petitioner would be entitled to retain the official accommodation at Gorakhpur. It transpires that when this Court had disposed of the Writ Petition No. 50647 of 2006, it was not apprised of the fact that the review petition of the petitioner had already been disposed of vide order dated 8.9.2006. 18. On the background facts, narrated above, Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the orders as well the enquiry on following grounds:- (I) The entire proceedings of the enquiry stood vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as: (a) no charge-sheet was served on the petitioner in accordance with the rules; (b) no opportunity was granted to the petitioner for submitting reply to the charge-sheet; (c) defence brief was not taken on record; (d) enquiry proceedings were conducted ex parte; (e) Enquiry Officer assumed the role of the charge-sheeted officer; (f) the order of the High Court dated 13.9.2006 was violated as no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the Reviewing Authority; and (g) the order passed on the review application was ante-dated. (II) The disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated by victimization and bias as is evident from the following facts: (a) three charge-sheets dated 1.6.1996, 10.3.1998 and 16.9.2002 were issued for the same misconduct; (b) venue of enquiry proceedings was changed three times; (c) the Enquiry Officer was not changed despite request; (d) the same Enquiry Officer conducted all the three enquiry proceedings; (e) Enquiry Officer himself was an accused in the FIR lodged by the petitioner at Varanasi; (f) the entry of the petitioner was banned in the office at Varanasi, therefore, the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated; and (i) the suspension order had remained in force right from 1998 to 1999 and thereafter from 2001 to 2006 thereby resulting in penury of the petitioner and therefore affecting his state of mind. (III) The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse as in his report, he merely referred to the material without properly disclosing its content. The exhibits that were relied on were not proved by the Presenting Officer, no witness was offered to the petitioner for cross-examination and statement of witness was not recorded. (III) The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse as in his report, he merely referred to the material without properly disclosing its content. The exhibits that were relied on were not proved by the Presenting Officer, no witness was offered to the petitioner for cross-examination and statement of witness was not recorded. (IV) The punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, particularly, keeping in account the 21 years of service rendered by the petitioner as also the fact that by his conduct the petitioner had not caused any loss to the bank and there were also no charges of any financial irregularity. Further the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was more for his behavior, which was an attitudinal problem, than for his misconduct and as such the order of removal was liable to be set aside. 19. Per Contra, Ms. Manisha Ambwani, holding the brief of Sri Vipin Sinha, learned counsel for the bank-respondents, supported the decision of removal from service. It was submitted that all the three charge-sheets related to different acts of misconduct, may be of similar nature, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any victimization of the petitioner. It was submitted that all the charges were duly proved against the petitioner in the inquiry where full opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner which he failed to avail, therefore, the Bank was constrained to hold the inquiry ex parte and take decision. It was submitted that the charges were all proved on the basis of documentary evidence duly proved by examining the witnesses having custody of those documents. As the petitioner did not himself participate in the enquiry proceedings inspite of sufficient notice he can neither blame the inquiry officer for not making the witnesses available to him for cross examination nor for not letting him produce evidence in defence. There was also no justification to change the inquiry officer as there was no demand for change of the inquiry officer from the beginning. It was only when the inquiry officer ruled against the frivolous objection of the petitioner with regards to service of the copy of the charge-sheet that a demand for change of the inquiry officer was raised on frivolous grounds during the course of the enquiry, which was rightly rejected. It was only when the inquiry officer ruled against the frivolous objection of the petitioner with regards to service of the copy of the charge-sheet that a demand for change of the inquiry officer was raised on frivolous grounds during the course of the enquiry, which was rightly rejected. As regards the quantum of punishment, it was submitted that the charges were serious and taken in its totality justified the punishment of removal from service. 20. At the outset, it would be useful to bring on record that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not much challenge the sufficiency of material brought out against him to prove the charges that were leveled against him. Further, not much argument was placed with regards to the validity of the earlier punishment orders dated 8.1.2001 and 5.5.2001 passed in reference to the charge-sheets dated 1.6.1996 and 21.8.1998 except that it was claimed that the proceedings stood vitiated on account of the official bias of the respondents. 21. Before examining the weight of the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to observe that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the three charge-sheets were with respect to same misconduct, therefore, the proceedings pursuant thereto amounted to victimization, cannot be entertained inasmuch as this very plea was raised before this Court in Writ Petition No. 48974 of 2002 and was not accepted by the Court. Further, this Court directed for completion of enquiry pursuant to the third charge-sheet. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not enclosed copy of the earlier two charge-sheets with the statement of allegations on which those charges were drawn so as to enable the Court to make a comparison of the misconduct on which those charges were drawn. An attempt has, however, been made by the petitioner vide Annexure 8 to the writ petition to compare the charges in the three charge-sheets, but in absence of the statement of allegations on the basis of which the charges were drawn, we are unable to accept that all the three charges related to same misconduct. More so, the statement of the allegations on which the third charge-sheet was drawn do clearly indicate that they, if not entirely, related to a period subsequent to the drawing of the earlier two charge-sheets. More so, the statement of the allegations on which the third charge-sheet was drawn do clearly indicate that they, if not entirely, related to a period subsequent to the drawing of the earlier two charge-sheets. In this regard it would be useful to reproduce the charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002 (annexure No. 7 to the writ petition), which reads as follows:- “STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE AGAINST SHRI RAKESH AGARWAL, ASST. MANAGER (LAW) (UNDER SUSPENSION) 1. While posted as Asstt. Manager (Law) at Zonal Office, Gorakhpur w.e.f 30.3.1999 as also in previous assignments. It is alleged that you failed to discharge your duties with utmost devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Official in violation of Rule 50(1), 50(4), 50(5) and 50(9) of State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules. Your acts were highly detrimental to the Bank’s interest as per details in the enclosed statement of allegations. List of documents relied upon is also enclosed. 2. Charges in brief are as under : CHARGE NO. 1 Although you were convicted for contempt of Court in criminal misc. case No. 148 (e) of 1997 by the Hon’ble High Court for adopting reckless recourse against the order passed by the Hon’ble Judge of High Court and subsequently censured by the Bank, you did not mend your attitude. CHARGE NO. 2 You are in the habit of putting frivolous notes/writing letters to the different functionaries of the Bank despite being warned in this connection verbally and in writing vide letter No. ZO/GKP/PEB/364 dated 6.5.1999 to refrain from such activities. CHARGE NO. 3 You are in the habit of Writing/Addressing letters direct to senior functionaries of the Bank including the Chairman, Managing Director, Dy. Managing Director, Central Board and CGM etc. despite several communications verbal as well as written to refrain from addressing such letters directly. CHARGE NO. 4 Local Head Office decision regarding your request for posting at the Local Head Office, Lucknow had already been conveyed to you through letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/752 dated 1.6.1999. Despite this you have been referring the matter to higher functionaries at Local Head Office and even at Corporate Centre which merely wastes the precious time of executives of the Bank in dealing with such matters time and again. CHARGE NO. 5 You always create hindrance in taking/receiving letters addressed to you, instead of offering your comments/advices in a proper manner. CHARGE NO. CHARGE NO. 5 You always create hindrance in taking/receiving letters addressed to you, instead of offering your comments/advices in a proper manner. CHARGE NO. 6 The language being used by you in your various letters addressed to the different functionaries of the Bank is violation of official decorum/protocol and also derogatory and you continue to use similar language despite being counseled several times verbally and vide letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/1727 dated 28.7.1999. CHARGE NO. 7 You had not been performing your duties as per expectations of the Bank and caused hindrance in many ways. CHARGE NO. 8 You had made frivolous complaints against the functionaries of the Bank. CHARGE NO. 9 You had lodged FIR with the Police at Gorakhpur against different functionaries of the Bank, which is against the rules governing your services. CHARGE NO. 10 You failed to comply with the terms and conditions in respect of advance or other facilities granted by the Bank. CHARGE NO. 11 Although you were penalized twice in terms of Rule 67 of State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules by the Appointing Authority for various acts of misconduct on your part, you still did not mend yourself and are committing the similar lapses as indicated in charge No. 2 to 11 above.” ———————————————— “ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH CHARGE NO.1 IS BASED. You were convicted for contempt of Court in criminal misc. case No. 148 (e) of 1997 by the Hon’ble High Court for adopting reckless recourse against the order passed by the Hon’ble Judge of High Court instead of ventilating your grouse before the appropriate forum and in accordance with the legal remedy. The Hon’ble High Court took strong exception and though you tendered written apology, the Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 31.7.12998 opined as under : “... We are of the opinion that the apology is not borne out by the contemners remorse or repentance of having committed a wrong. It is just a device adopted by him to wriggle out of implications of the fond act only after being put on notice for contempt action. The petitioner cannot be called to be a rustic country folk, he is not illiterate person. On his own admission, he is a law graduate and is working as a law officer in State Bank of India. The petitioner cannot be called to be a rustic country folk, he is not illiterate person. On his own admission, he is a law graduate and is working as a law officer in State Bank of India. The belated and after thought of mental stress is a crude camouflage to cover up his highly egoistic and arrogant misadventure in branding the entire subordinate judiciary as corrupt simply because one learned judge could not give him relief according to his conveniences. We accordingly, reject his so called apology and hold him guilty of contempt of Court.” “... Taking the case in its entirely, it could be a fit case where the contemner should have been sent to jail and cool his heels. In view of the gravity of his foul deed, we are also aware of the consequence which might affect his service and ultimately his family, dependent on him for their living, therefore, we refrain from taking any harsh measure and as such order the contemner to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- only. The contemner is awarded two weeks time to deposit the fine. In case of default of payment of fine, he will suffer two months simple imprisonment.” Further, consequent upon your conviction by the Hon’ble High Court, you were censured by the Bank in terms of para 68 (7) (ii) of SBI Officers Service Rules read with rule 67 (a) of the rules ibid. Despite aforesaid remarks of the Hon’ble High Court and subsequent punishment by the Bank, vide Disciplinary Authority’s letter dated 19.10.2001 you did not mend yourself and continued to commit similar mistakes as given in the subsequent charges. ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH CHARGE NO.2 IS BASED. Despite being warned verbally several times and in writing vide letter No. ZO/GKP/PER/364 dated the 6.5.1999 not to put frivolous notes and write irrelevant letters to the different functionaries of the bank you continue to write such communication. Thus you failed to maintain official decorum and disobeyed reasonable orders of your superiors violating rules governing your service. A few of examples are as under : (i) You letter dated 22.3.2000 addressed to General Manager (D&PB). (ii). Your letter dated 15.3.2000 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (iii) Your letter dated 18.4.2000 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. A few of examples are as under : (i) You letter dated 22.3.2000 addressed to General Manager (D&PB). (ii). Your letter dated 15.3.2000 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (iii) Your letter dated 18.4.2000 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (iv) Your letter dated 5.6.2000 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (v) Your Letter dated 25.11.1999 addressed to Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal office, Gorakhpur. (vi) Your noting on letter No. DGM/GKP/2789 dated 12.10.1999. ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH CHARGE NO.3 IS BASED. Despite being advised several times verbally as well as in writing vide letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/1416 dated 14.7.1999, letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/3134 dated 12.11.1999, letter No. DGM/PER/4123 dated 29.1.2000 and DGM/GKP/PER/2473 dated 16.1.2001 and also undertaken by you not to commit such lapses vide remarks/undertaking on letter of explanation vide letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/181 dated 11.5.2001, you still indulge yourself in communicating/writing letter direct to higher functionaries of the Bank including the Chairman/ MD/ Dy.MD/ Central Board/ CGM etc. Thus you failed to maintain official decorum and disobeyed reasonable orders of your superiors violating rules governing your service. A few of the examples are noted below : (i) Your letter dated 22.3.2000 addressed to GM (D & PB), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (ii) Your letter dated 15.3.2000 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (iii) Your letter dated 3.4.2000 addressed to the Chairman, Managing Director, other functionaries at the State Bank of India, Central Offices, Mumbai. (iv) Your letter dated 18.4.2000 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (v) Your letter dated 5.6.2000 addressed to CM (D & PB), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (vi) Your letter dated 15.4.2000 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (vii) Your letter dated 15.7.2001/16.7.2001 addressed to GM (D & PB), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (viii) Your letter dated 17.6.2001 addressed to Central Board, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai. (ix) Your letter dated 30.4.2002 addressed to Central Vigilance Commission and the Central Board/ECCB/Reviewing Authority and Reviewing Committee/Chairman/MDs. (x) Your letter dated 7.6.1999 addressed to CGM, LHO, Lucknow. (xi) Your letter dated 17.7.1999 addressed to CGM, LHO, Lucknow. (viii) Your letter dated 17.6.2001 addressed to Central Board, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai. (ix) Your letter dated 30.4.2002 addressed to Central Vigilance Commission and the Central Board/ECCB/Reviewing Authority and Reviewing Committee/Chairman/MDs. (x) Your letter dated 7.6.1999 addressed to CGM, LHO, Lucknow. (xi) Your letter dated 17.7.1999 addressed to CGM, LHO, Lucknow. (xii) Your letter dated 22.1.2000 addressed to Chairman, MDs, Dy. Dy. MDs and CGM (Law) at Central Office. ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH CHARGE NO.4 IS BASED. Local Head Office decision regarding your request for posting at local Head office, Lucknow had already been conveyed to you through letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/752 dated 1.6.1999 and letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/2007 dated 8.8.1999. Despite this you had been referring the matter to higher functionaries at Local Head Office Lucknow and even at Corporate Centre which merely wastes the precious time of the executives of the Bank in dealing with such matters time and again. Thus you disobeyed reasonable orders of your superiors violating rules governing your service. A few of the examples are as under:- (i) Your letter dated 3.4.2000 addressed to the Chairman/Managing Directors and All Dy. Managing Directors, State Bank of India, Central Offices, Mumbai. (ii) Your letter dated 15.6.1999 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (iii) Your letter dated 16.7.2001 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (iv) Your letter dated 25.5.2001 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (v) Your letter dated 21.6.2001/22.6.2001 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (vi) Letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/1422 dated 25.7.2000. (vii) Letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/1152 dated 21.6.2000. (viii) Letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/2007 dated 18.8.1999. (ix) Your letter dated 16.8.99 addressed to CGM, LHO, Lucknow. (x) Your letter dated 3.9.1999 addressed to CGM, LHO, Lucknow. (xi) Your letter dated 24.11.1999 addressed to MDs, Central Office, Mumbai. ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH CHARGE NO.5 IS BASED. Despite verbal/written counseling on several occasions you always create hindrance in taking/receiving letters addressed to you and are in habit of putting irrelevant remarks on the letters addressed to you, instead of offering your comments/advices separately in a proper manner. You also used to put irrelevant remarks on the letter itself creating incorrect disposal of letters. This is against official decorum and violation of rules governing your service. You also used to put irrelevant remarks on the letter itself creating incorrect disposal of letters. This is against official decorum and violation of rules governing your service. A few of the examples are as under : (i) Remarks on letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/181 dated 11.5.2001 addressed to you. (ii)Your remarks on Appointing Authority’s order dated 5.5.2001 addressed to you. (iii)Your remarks on Letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/2789 dated 12.10.1999. (iv) Letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/2296 dated 2.9.1999 addressed to you not received by you and returned. (v) Letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/931 dated 16.6.1999 addressed to you wherein it has been advised that you did not receive letter No. LD/99-2000/179 dated 24.5.1999 and also refers to your letter dated 17.6.1999 on the subject. (vi) You did not receive letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/945 dated 16.6.99. (vii) Letter No. ZO/GKP/PER/364 dated 6.5.1999. (viii) Your remarks on letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/1372 dated 15.7.2000. (ix) Medical bill for Rs. 2600.00 returned to you was not received by you. (x) Letter No. GKP/PER/581 dated 16.7.2001 (Your suspension letter) was not received by you. (xi) Letter No. ZO/OA/653 dated 9.9.99 addressed to you. (xii) Letter No. ZO/OA/617 dated 19.8.99. (xiii) Your remarks on office order dated 21.4.1999. (xiv) Letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/178 dated 21.4.1999 addressed to you. ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH CHARGE NO.6 IS BASED. The language used by you to various letter’s addressed to the Bank is derogatory and you continue to use the similar language despite being counseled several times verbally and vide Letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/1727 dated 26.7.1999. It is not only against the decorum and protocol of the office but also gross violation of rules governing your service. A few of the example are as under:- (i) Your letter dated 25.5.2001 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (ii) Your letter dated 18.4.2000 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (iii) Your letter dated 5.6.2000 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (iv) Your letter dated 11.8.2000 addressed to Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Gorakhpur. (v) Your letter dated 16.7.2001 given to Incharge, Thana Cantt. Gorakhpur. (vi) Your Letter dated 15.7.2001/16.7.2001 addressed to General Manager (D & PB), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (vii) Your Letter dated 17.6.2001 addressed to Central Board, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Gorakhpur. (v) Your letter dated 16.7.2001 given to Incharge, Thana Cantt. Gorakhpur. (vi) Your Letter dated 15.7.2001/16.7.2001 addressed to General Manager (D & PB), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow. (vii) Your Letter dated 17.6.2001 addressed to Central Board, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai. (viii) Your letter dated 5.5.1999 addressed to DGM, ZO, Gorakhpur. (ix) Your letter dated 14.8.2000 addressed to CGM, LHO, Lucknow. (x) Your letter dated 18.8.2000 addressed to GM (D & PB), LHO, Lucknow. ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH CHARGE NO.7 IS BASED. You did not perform your duties as per the expectations of the Bank. You caused hindrances in many ways. Following letters addressed to you by the controller are some of the examples regarding your non-performance of duties : (i) Letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/931 dated 16.6.1999. (ii) Officer Order dated 18.6.1999. (iii) Letter No. DGM/GKP/PER/301 dated 10.7.1999 addressed to CDO, LHO, Lucknow by DGM, ZO, Gorakhpur. 2. Your deliberately failed to perform your duties as per your role in the Bank as Asstt. Manager (Law). It is observed that most of the work meant for you had not been done by you during your posting at Zonal Office, Gorakhpur. All the legal matters/cases, which were to be dealt with /seen by you, had to be looked into at the concerned Regions/Departments while you remained always busy in creating hindrance in many ways. Please refer to scores of letters written by you during your presence in the module, which not only consumed most of your office time but also created problems for other officials/ functionaries of the Bank in dealing with those letters without any gain for the Bank. ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH CHARGE No. 8 IS BASED. Frivolous complaints against the functionaries of the Bank have been made by you. A few of the examples are as under : (i) Your letter dated 15.6.1999 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow against the Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Gorakhpur. (ii) Your letter dated 5.6.2000 addressed to General Manager (D & PB), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow against the Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Gorakhpur. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Gorakhpur. (ii) Your letter dated 5.6.2000 addressed to General Manager (D & PB), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow against the Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Gorakhpur. (iii) Your letter dated 27.5.2000 addressed to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lucknow against Shri K. N. Shukla, Chief Manager (OA), State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Gorakhpur and Shri G. M. Khan, Chief Manager, NPA Management Cell, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Gorakhpur. (iv) Your letter dated 3.4.2000 addressed to Chairman MD and Dy. MD against Shri K. N. Shukla, Chief Manager (OA), State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Gorakhpur. (v) Your letter dated 15.3.2000 addressed to CSM, LHO, Lucknow against Shri K. M. Shukla. ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH CHARGE NO.9 IS BASED. You lodged baseless and wrong complaints with the Police, Thana Cantt. at Gorakhpur against different senior functionaries of the Bank. Thus you tried to tarnish the image of the senior officials of the Bank as well as that of the Bank which is against the rules governing your service conditions. A few of the examples as under : (i) Your letter dated 15.3.2000 given to Incharge, Thana Cantt, Gorakhpur. (ii) Your letter dated 22.2.2001 addressed to Kotwali Incharge, Gorakhpur. (iii) Your letter dated 16.8.1999 to Kotwali Incharge, Bareilly. (iv) Your letter of Tahrir dated 16.7.2001 addressed to Incharge, Thana Cantt., Gorakhpur. ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH CHARGE NO.10 IS BASED. You failed to comply with the terms and conditions of advance against your T.A. Bills etc. or other facilities granted to you by the Bank. You had taken advance from Bank’s suspense account on various dates for different purposes. While these advances were required to be adjusted within a scheduled time as per Bank’s instructions contained in page No. 158, Chapter 5(26) and Page No. 241, chapter 9(18) of Hand Book on staff Matters (Volume-I), Supervisory staff, but you failed to do so thereby violating deliberately Bank’s instructions in this regard. Some of the examples are as under:- (i) Advance of Rs. 12500/- taken by you from suspense Account on 3.3.2001 for availing LFC has not be adjusted. (ii) Advance of Rs. 5000/- taken by you on 11.5.99 was adjusted on 15.1.2000. (iii) Advance of Rs. 7000/- taken by you on 1.6.99 was adjusted on 15.1.2000. (iv) Advance of Rs. Some of the examples are as under:- (i) Advance of Rs. 12500/- taken by you from suspense Account on 3.3.2001 for availing LFC has not be adjusted. (ii) Advance of Rs. 5000/- taken by you on 11.5.99 was adjusted on 15.1.2000. (iii) Advance of Rs. 7000/- taken by you on 1.6.99 was adjusted on 15.1.2000. (iv) Advance of Rs. 15000/- taken by you on 8.10.1999 was adjusted on 25.11.99. ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH CHARGE NO.11 IS BASED. (i) You were charge-sheeted on 1.6.96 for acts of willful insubordination and non-compliance of lawful and reasonable orders of your superiors in violation of Rule 50(I), for your (a) failing to maintain good conduct and discipline and show Courtesy in transaction and negotiations, (b) addressing letter to various officials in the tone and tenor which was neither proper nor in good taste and putting derogatory remarks on official documents (violation of Rule 50(4) and 50 (5). Further in violation of Rule 50 (1) (i) appeared and pleaded in a Court as a defence lawyer in a private case without obtaining prior approval of the competent authority, (d) in violation of Rule 60 (2), your negotiated SB withdrawal and C/A charge without maintaining sufficient balance in your account. After conclusion of proceedings, the Appointing Authority vide his order dated 8.1.2002 deciding to impose upon you the penalty of bringing you down by three stages in the scale of pay applicable to you for a period of two years. (ii) While departmental enquiry was in progress you indulged in fresh sets of disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors and willful insubordination in violation of Rule 50 (1) and 50 (2). You also failed to maintain good conduct and discipline and show Courtesy to persons in official dealings in violation of Rule 50(5). You also failed to comply with the terns and conditions in respect of advance or other facility granted by the bank in violation of Rule 50(9) and 60 (2). For the above lapses, charge-sheet dated 21.8.1998 was served upon you and after conclusion of proceedings the Appointing authority vide his order dated 5th May 2001 decided to impose the penalty of bringing down by one stage in the scale of pay applicable to you for a period of two years under Rule 67 (f). For the above lapses, charge-sheet dated 21.8.1998 was served upon you and after conclusion of proceedings the Appointing authority vide his order dated 5th May 2001 decided to impose the penalty of bringing down by one stage in the scale of pay applicable to you for a period of two years under Rule 67 (f). Despite the above penalties imposed upon you by the Assessing Authority for the various sets of misconduct on your part, you did not send yourself and continued committing the similar lapses as indicated in charge No. 2 to 10 as above.” 22. A careful examination of the allegations, on which the charges were drawn in the charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002, would go to show that the misconduct might be of a repetitive nature but was with respect to a period subsequent to the issuance of the earlier two charge-sheets. No employee gets a license to repeat a misconduct and claim immunity from repeated disciplinary action based on such repeated misconduct. Accordingly we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the three departmental enquiries were drawn on same misconduct and as such amounted to victimization of the petitioner. 23. The State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules in Chapter XI provide for Conduct, Discipline and Appeal. It transpires from the record that the charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002 related to violation of Rule 50(1), 50(4), 50(5) and 50(9) of the aforesaid Rules whereas the charge-sheet dated 1.6.1996 referred to violation of Rule 50(1), 50(4), 50(5), 51(1) and 60(2) of the Rules. Likewise, the charge-sheet dated 21.8.1998 referred to violation of Rule 50(1), 50(2), 50(4), 50(5), 50(9) and 60(2) of the Rules. These relevant Rules are being reproduced herein below : “CHAPTER XI CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL SECTION 1 - CONDUCT General observance of good conduct, discipline, integrity, diligence, fidelity, etc. 50. (1) Every officer shall conform to and abide by these rules and shall observe, comply with and obey all lawful and reasonable orders and directions which may from time to time be given to him by any person under whose jurisdiction, superintendence or control he may for the time being be placed. 50. (2) Every officer shall undertake and perform his duties as an official of the Bank in such capacity and at such place as he may from time to time be directed by the Bank. 50. 50. (2) Every officer shall undertake and perform his duties as an official of the Bank in such capacity and at such place as he may from time to time be directed by the Bank. 50. (4) Every officer shall, at all times, take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank official. 50. (5) Every officer shall maintain good conduct and discipline and show Courtesy and attention to all persons in all transactions and negotiations. 50. (9) No officer shall abuse or fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions in respect of any loan, advance or other facility granted by the Bank either directly or indirectly to the officer or through any other agency, including loans for purchase of vehicles or construction of houses. Engaging in trade, business, employment, acceptance of fee, association with news papers, other communication systems, etc. 51. (1) No officer shall, except with the previous sanction of the competent authority, engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or undertake any other employment. Provided that an officer may, without such sanction, undertake honorary work of a social or charitable nature or occasional work of a literary, artistic, scientific, professional, cultural, educational, religious or social character, subject to the condition that his official duties do not thereby suffer or the undertaking of such work is not detrimental to the interest of the Bank; but he shall not undertake, or shall discontinue such work if so directed by the competent authority. (i) Canvassing by an officer in support of the business of insurance agency, commission agency, etc. owned or managed by a member of his family shall be deemed to be a breach of this sub-rule. (ii) Prior sanction under this rule is not necessary for holding an office ex-officio outside the Bank, under any law or rules, regulations or bye laws made thereunder, for the time being in force, or under directions from any authority to whom the officer is subordinate. Drawing advance salary, discounting cheques, accepting contribution, collecting subscription. 60. (2) No officer shall discount or negotiate or cause to be discounted or negotiated cheques or other instruments drawn on his account without sufficient balance therein.” 24. Drawing advance salary, discounting cheques, accepting contribution, collecting subscription. 60. (2) No officer shall discount or negotiate or cause to be discounted or negotiated cheques or other instruments drawn on his account without sufficient balance therein.” 24. Rule 66 of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules provides that a breach of any of the provisions of these rules shall be deemed to constitute misconduct punishable under Rule 67. Rule 67 provides for penalties, which include minor and major penalty. 25. In the instant case we find that though the various charge-sheets drawn against the petitioner might have referred to violation of common conduct rules, but as the misconduct on which those charges were drawn were different and related to different periods, successive departmental proceedings were legally justified and they did not amount to victimization of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot, in such circumstances, claim the repeated proceedings against him as an act of Official Bias. 26. The contention of the petitioner that neither the charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002 was served on him nor any opportunity was given to him to submit reply thereto, is unacceptable. Admittedly, the petitioner had challenged the third charge-sheet vide Writ Petition No. 48974 of 2002. The entire charge-sheet was enclosed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition. Even otherwise in paragraph 31 of the rejoinder-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 48974 of 2002, which was sworn on 31.3.2003 by the petitioner, it has been stated that he does not dispute the receipt of the charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002. The Enquiry Officer has also recorded that during the course of enquiry proceedings the petitioner had stated that he was not served with copy of the charge-sheet “properly”. Meaning thereby that service of the charge-sheet was not denied but a technical plea was raised with regard to the manner and mode of service of the charge-sheet. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet was not duly served on him cannot be accepted. 27. Meaning thereby that service of the charge-sheet was not denied but a technical plea was raised with regard to the manner and mode of service of the charge-sheet. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet was not duly served on him cannot be accepted. 27. As regards the contention that he was not given opportunity to submit reply to the charge-sheet, we are of the view that once it is established that the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet, it was incumbent on the petitioner to submit a reply to the charge-sheet and if, for any reason, he was unable or handicapped in furnishing reply thereto, there should have been some material on record to demonstrate such disability referable to some lapse on the part of the department. In the instant case, there is no such material on record to suggest any lapse on the part of the department. Further, we find that the petitioner was admittedly in receipt of the charge-sheet, at least since 2003, but he submitted no reply to it even up to the year 2005 when he participated in the enquiry. In the given circumstances, we fail to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was neither served with the charge-sheet nor was given opportunity to submit reply thereto. 28. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer had assumed the role of the charge-sheeted officer and, as such, the enquiry stood vitiated is also unfounded. From the enquiry report it appears that since the charge-sheeted officer was absenting continuously despite regular notices in writing, the Inquiring authority assumed the role of the charge-sheeted officer for the purpose of pleading not guilty on behalf of the charged officer so as to ensure that the burden remains on the Presenting Officer to prove the charges. Such an act on the part of the Enquiry Officer neither causes any prejudice to the charged officer nor it in any way violates the principles of natural justice. Rather it was to ensure that the charged officer may be given a fair trial by virtue of maintaining the burden on the Presenting Officer to prove the charges inspite of the enquiry proceeding ex parte. Rather it was to ensure that the charged officer may be given a fair trial by virtue of maintaining the burden on the Presenting Officer to prove the charges inspite of the enquiry proceeding ex parte. May be the language used by the Inquiring Authority that he assumes the role of the charged officer for denying the charges was not appropriate, but the intention of the Inquiring Authority was clearly there to ensure fair trial. Thus, on this count, it cannot be said that there was violation of the principles of natural justice so as to vitiate the proceedings. 29. As regards the contention that the enquiry proceedings were conducted ex parte, suffice it to say that what is required in law is that an opportunity of hearing is provided to the delinquent before taking penal action against him. It is not required of an Enquiry Officer to suspend the enquiry and await a delinquent to come and participate in the enquiry as and when it pleases him. In the instant case, from the enquiry report, it is clear that despite adequate opportunity, the petitioner failed to participate in the enquiry, therefore, the Enquiry Officer was constrained to proceed ex parte and conclude the same. Further, there was a direction of this Court to conclude the enquiry within a time frame. Moreover, the direction to conclude the enquiry within a time frame was at the instance of the petitioner, accordingly, the petitioner was under a moral obligation, if not legal, to participate in the enquiry proceedings. It is clear from the enquiry report that the Enquiry Officer had been keeping the charged officer regularly informed of each and every date of the enquiry proceeding along with the minutes of the earlier date of the proceeding. As the charge-sheeted officer was well informed of the dates in the enquiry proceeding, he cannot be heard saying that the enquiry was conducted ex parte without justification. We are, therefore, of the view that the Inquiring Authority was justified in proceeding with the enquiry ex parte. 30. As the charge-sheeted officer was well informed of the dates in the enquiry proceeding, he cannot be heard saying that the enquiry was conducted ex parte without justification. We are, therefore, of the view that the Inquiring Authority was justified in proceeding with the enquiry ex parte. 30. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reviewing authority had not given opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner despite direction of this Court in its order dated 13.9.2006, cannot be accepted inasmuch as by the time the order dated 13.9.2006 was passed, the Reviewing Authority had already passed the order on the review petition. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show existence of any rule which may provide for personal hearing by the Reviewing Authority. Thus, on this count also, it cannot be said that there was infringement of any principle of natural justice. 31. Likewise, the contention that the order passed on the review petition was ante-dated only for the purpose of avoiding the direction given by this Court, cannot be accepted, particularly in absence of any plea of personal bias or malice on the part of any of the members of the reviewing committee. It would be useful to note that the petitioner has not impleaded any of the respondents in his personal capacity. Accordingly, we fail to accept the contention that the review order was ante-dated just to deprive the petitioner of personal hearing. 32. The contention that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the petitioner as he had conducted the previous two enquiries against him, cannot be accepted. Mere fact that an Enquiry Officer has earlier been an enquiry officer in some other disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent would not disqualify him from being an enquiry officer in subsequent proceedings. In the writ petition although there is averment that the petitioner had demanded for change of the enquiry officer, but there is no averment that any application was moved for that purpose at the initial stage itself. Further there is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner had sought for change of the enquiry officer in the earlier two proceedings that were drawn against him. In the given circumstances we fail to accept the contention that the enquiry stood vitiated merely because the same enquiry officer presided all the three enquiries held against the petitioner. 33. In the given circumstances we fail to accept the contention that the enquiry stood vitiated merely because the same enquiry officer presided all the three enquiries held against the petitioner. 33. Further the refusal to accede to the request to change the enquiry officer, in the facts of the present case, did not vitiate the enquiry. In the instant petition, the petitioner has not disclosed that any demand was made for change of the enquiry officer from the initial stages of the enquiry. However, from a conjoint reading of the averments made in paragraph 41 of the writ petition; the application dated 8.3.2005 which is a part of Annexure 11 at page 196 of the paper book; and the enquiry report it appears that a request with regard to change of the Enquiry Officer appears to have been made on 8.3.2005 on the strength of a representation made to the police of police station Cantt, Varanasi on 25.2.2005. A perusal of the enquiry report reveals that on 25.2.2005, the charge-sheeted officer, in the enquiry proceedings, repudiated the service of charge-sheet dated 16.9.2002 by claiming that it was not “served properly”. The Presenting Officer opposed the plea on the ground that the charge-sheeted officer was in receipt of the charge-sheet as was clear from the record of the Writ Petition No. 48974 of 2002. As a result, the plea of non-receipt of the charge-sheet was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer decided to proceed further with the enquiry and fix the next date i.e. 26.2.2005 to which the charged-officer protested on the ground that money had not been provided to him in terms of the High Court direction which again was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer in view of the fact that banker’s cheque was offered to the charged-officer on 25.2.2005, which he had refused to accept. It is only when the Enquiry Officer rejected the frivolous objection of the charged-officer that an application was sent to the police station that the enquiry officer had impersonated the charged-officer by assuming his role in denying the charges as well as an application was sent on 8.3.2005 for change of the Enquiry Officer. It is only when the Enquiry Officer rejected the frivolous objection of the charged-officer that an application was sent to the police station that the enquiry officer had impersonated the charged-officer by assuming his role in denying the charges as well as an application was sent on 8.3.2005 for change of the Enquiry Officer. As we have already held that the Enquiry Officer had assumed the role of the charged-officer only for the purpose of pleading not guilty on his behalf so as to put the burden on the Presenting Officer to prove the charges against him despite failure on his part to participate in the enquiry, it cannot be said that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the petitioner or that there was any need for change of the Enquiry Officer. If Inquiry Officers are to be changed only because they reject frivolous objections of the delinquent, no enquiry would ever be completed. We find that the petitioner is seeking an advantage of his own wrong, which we will not permit in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on several decisions of the Apex Court i.e. Kedar and Company v. Workmen, AIR 1964 SC 719 ; Union of India v. Prakash Kumar Tandon, 2009 (2) SCC 541 ; Harsh Narayan Singh v. I.G. Police, AIR 1954 VP 50; Registrar of Cooperative Society v. F.X. Fernando, 1994 (2) SCC 746 ; Indrani Bai v. Union of India, 1994(3) JT 580 and Harikrishana Das v. Union of India, 1992 LIC 265 so as to contend that where the request for change of enquiry officer is turned down enquiry is vitiated. 35. Now it is settled in law that the principles of natural justice are not to be applied in a straight-jacket form. The facts of each case are to be assessed to find whether there has been a genuine infraction of the principles of natural justice thereby causing serious prejudice to the delinquent or that the infraction of it is pleaded as a ruse to cover up a deliberate attempt on the part of the delinquent to avoid the disciplinary proceedings. Ordinarily, on the principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done, a request for change of an Enquiry Officer should not be turned down. Ordinarily, on the principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done, a request for change of an Enquiry Officer should not be turned down. But where the request has been made at a belated stage, raising frivolous pleas, just to avoid the logical conclusion of the enquiry, the Court should be loath to interfere with the disciplinary action merely on the ground that such request has not been acceded to. In the case at hand, there was a direction by the High Court to conclude the enquiry proceedings within a time bound period. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate from any paragraph of the writ petition that his demand for change of the Enquiry Officer had been from the very beginning of the third enquiry. In fact, the petitioner participated in the enquiry on 28.1.2005 and thereafter on 25.2.2005. Only when the Enquiry Officer rejected the frivolous plea of the petitioner that he was not served with the charge-sheet that the petitioner made wild allegations against him of impersonation and demanded for his change. The application for change of the Enquiry Officer was addressed to the Deputy General Manager on 8.3.2005, which was rejected by him, as is disclosed from the document at page 198 of the paper book. In the given circumstances, we do not find any good ground to believe that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the petitioner or that on account of refusal to change the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner suffered any loss. It is now settled in law that enquiry proceedings can be continued ex parte if the charged-officer willfully abstains from the proceedings. From the record, we are satisfied that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner. The petitioner did not avail of the opportunity offered to him and he, on one technical plea or the other, wanted to scuttle the enquiry proceedings and later when his pleas were not accepted he made wild allegations against the Enquiry Officer. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the plea that the enquiry officer was biased against the petitioner or that there was grave failure of justice by not changing the enquiry officer. 36. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the plea that the enquiry officer was biased against the petitioner or that there was grave failure of justice by not changing the enquiry officer. 36. We would also like to note that in the brief notes supplied to us by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been mentioned that the Enquiry Officer was an accused in the F.I.R lodged by the petitioner at Varanasi but copy of such first information report has not been brought to our notice nor there is any specific averment in the writ petition that any particular case crime number was assigned to any particular F.I.R. at any police station in Varanasi. From the record it appears that when, on 25.2.2005, the Enquiry Officer had rejected the plea of the petitioner with regard to the service of the charge-sheet on him, that the petitioner sent a letter to the police of police station Cantt, Varanasi alleging that the Enquiry Officer was guilty of an offence as he had impersonated the petitioner by assuming his role in denying the charges leveled against him. It is, however, not clear from the record that such application was ever registered as an F.I.R. As we have already discussed that the Enquiry Officer had assumed the role of the charge-sheeted officer for denying the charges leveled against him with a view to proceed with the enquiry by putting burden on the Presenting Officer to prove the charges, in our view the representation to the police on that count was completely misconceived and in bad taste. It rather reflects the mind-set of the petitioner to find fault at the drop of a hat. Thus we are of the considered view that the enquiry proceedings were not vitiated for refusal to change the Enquiry Officer. 37. The contention that on account of the change in venue of the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry stood vitiated, cannot be accepted inasmuch as the petitioner was duly informed of the place of the enquiry and was also offered traveling expenses to attend the enquiry. Moreover, this aspect of the matter already stand covered by the direction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 48974 of 2002 whereby the petitioner was provided with the benefit of the traveling allowance for the purpose of participating in the enquiry. Moreover, this aspect of the matter already stand covered by the direction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 48974 of 2002 whereby the petitioner was provided with the benefit of the traveling allowance for the purpose of participating in the enquiry. It has also come in the enquiry report that on 25.2.2005, the petitioner was offered the traveling allowance, which he refused to accept. 38. The contention that the entry of the petitioner was banned in the office is without any material to support. Even in the counter-affidavit, this allegation has been denied. As regards the contention that on account of continuance of the order of suspension, the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated, suffice it to say that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was deliberately not paid the subsistence allowance payable to him under the rules, therefore, this contention cannot be accepted. 39. The learned counsel for the petitioner also orally submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. However, upon careful examination of the various paragraphs of the writ petition we did not find any such averment. Otherwise also, from a perusal of the enquiry report it cannot be said that the findings recorded by him are perverse. Further, the exhibits that were relied in support of the findings were produced in evidence by the Presenting Officer and two witnesses were examined during the course of the enquiry, who proved the documents on the basis of the record available with them. The petitioner was given opportunity to examine the documents and to make notes, which he failed to avail. There was also no challenge to the genuineness of the documents. As no evidence was led in rebuttal thereof, the documents were sufficient to establish the charges against the petitioner, particularly in view of the nature of the charges leveled against him. The petitioner has not stated anywhere in the writ petition that the documents, on the basis of which the charges were sought to be proved against him, were not relevant to the charges. The documents that have been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer have neither been produced before us nor their production was demanded by the petitioner. There is also no challenge on the part of the petitioner that those documents could not have proved the charges. The documents that have been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer have neither been produced before us nor their production was demanded by the petitioner. There is also no challenge on the part of the petitioner that those documents could not have proved the charges. In the circumstances, we do not find any good ground to hold that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse. 40. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his defence brief was not taken on record by the enquiry officer, is also not acceptable. The record of the writ petition indicates that the Presenting Officer had fixed 10.4.2005 as the date for submission of defence brief. Instead of filing defence brief, the petitioner gave an application on 7.4.2005 (which is part of Annexure 11 to the writ petition at page 200 of the paper book) before the Enquiry Officer thereby challenging the ex parte enquiry proceedings and calling for fresh enquiry. This application dated 7.4.2005 cannot be said to be the defence brief. The Enquiry Officer rejected the application dated 7.4.2005 vide letter dated 13.4.2005 (which is part of Annexure 11 to the writ petition at page 209 of the paper book) stating therein that since enquiry has already been concluded ex parte and the petitioner had not participated in the enquiry inspite of opportunity, there was no necessity to reopen the enquiry with further information that the petitioner did not submit his defence brief by the date fixed. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defence brief of the petitioner was not taken on record by the enquiry officer, cannot be accepted. 41. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate and, as such, should be reviewed, we are of the view that the conduct of the petitioner, particularly, in lodging first information report against the higher officers of the bank, is a serious misconduct. From the record, it appears that the first information report was lodged against the officers of the bank merely because the petitioner had been suspended. The Enquiry Officer was also of the view that the first information report was lodged with a purpose of pressurizing the officers of the bank. The investigation pursuant to the first information report has ended in a final report by the police. The Enquiry Officer was also of the view that the first information report was lodged with a purpose of pressurizing the officers of the bank. The investigation pursuant to the first information report has ended in a final report by the police. The past record of the petitioner is also not such that sympathetic view may be taken with regard to the punishment awarded to him. It has also come on record that he has been punished for contempt of this Court. At this stage, we would like to add that the petitioner was a Law Officer. Law Officers are employed by corporate entities such as Banks etc for the purpose of assisting them in legal matters including litigation. If these institutions are to litigate with their own Law Officers then the very purpose for which the Law Officers are employed would be frustrated. In the instant case, we find that the petitioner had made so many frivolous allegations against his higher officers that there may be complete lack of confidence in him so as to justify taking a lenient view on the punishment. Even otherwise, the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as well as the reviewing committee have passed well reasoned order in support of their decision. In Charanjit Lamba v. Commanding Officer, Army Southern Command, 2010(3) ESC 388 (SC), the Apex Court in paragraph 20, observed as follows : “What is clear is that while judicially reviewing an order of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee the writ Court would not assume the role of an appellate authority. It would not impose a lesser punishment merely because it considers the same to be more reasonable than what the disciplinary authority has imposed. It is only in cases where the punishment is so disproportionate to the gravity of charge that no reasonable person placed in the position of the disciplinary authority could have imposed such a punishment that a writ Court may step in to interfere with same.” 42. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate or such, which may warrant inference by this Court. Further, we find that the petitioner has not exhibited a conduct which may enable us to take a lenient view on him. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate or such, which may warrant inference by this Court. Further, we find that the petitioner has not exhibited a conduct which may enable us to take a lenient view on him. We find that he raised frivolous plea before the enquiry officer with regards to non-service of charge-sheet on him, when he had already accepted receipt of the same in his pleadings before this Court. We find that when the enquiry officer ruled against him on the objection with regards to service of charge-sheet, he sent a complaint to the police with wild allegations that the enquiry officer be proceeded for offense of impersonating the charged officer as the enquiry officer had assumed the role of the charged officer in pleading not guilty on his behalf. We also find that he had been punished by this Court for contempt where he made wild allegations against the subordinate judiciary at large. We also find that his non-cooperation in the departmental enquiry inspite of direction of this Court, at his instance, to complete the enquiry within a time-frame, shows his recalcitrant attitude, which in totality dissuades us from taking a lenient view on the quantum of punishment. 43. Before parting we would like to observe that the learned counsel for the parties have cited before us various authorities in support of their respective pleas but for the sake of brevity, as also for the reason that the facts of each case are different and peculiar to itself, we have not individually dealt with them. 44. For the reasons detailed above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. ——————