ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Bank as well as learned Senior counsel for the State Vigilance Department. 2. The petitioner in the present application is aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2008 passed by the Board of Directors of the Respondent Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited, Patna (Hereinafter referred to as the Bank) issued under the signature of the Managing Director of the Bank, whereby punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him. An order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority against the said impugned order dated 10.03.2008 is also under challenge. 3. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Staff Officer in the Bank. On the allegation of gross irregularities and the misconduct pertaining to fraudulent misappropriation of the Bank money, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for the following charges:- I. “A large number of cheques were deposited by P & T Cooperative Societies in their current Account for collection / clearance have not been credited in their Current Account. After collection, the credit voucher has been changed by you, and fraudulently credited in your own S.B. account No. 3046 instead of Current Account of P & T Society. In some cases cheque numbers have been left to be mentioned in the voucher and in some cases imaginary / wrong numbers of cheques were mentioned in the vouchers. II. It has also been reported that this mal practice of defalcation has flourishing in New Market Branch since 1992 and you are the main brain behind it. When the conspiracy broke out you stole the Bill Collection Register for the period from 13.10.98 to 8.8.2002. The major amount of defalcation was through this register. Again, you also tried to conceal away other papers including Bill Collection Register, but on account of immediate action by the guard and Record keeper you were caught red handed and documents were seized from your possession. III. in the year 2004 when P & T society winded up it major business then you adopted different procedure for defalcating the public money by way of superfluous documentation without any entry in the respective ledger, you credited 51,000/- in your and your aide’s (Nafis Akhtar) account. IV. III. in the year 2004 when P & T society winded up it major business then you adopted different procedure for defalcating the public money by way of superfluous documentation without any entry in the respective ledger, you credited 51,000/- in your and your aide’s (Nafis Akhtar) account. IV. It has also been found that most of the vouchers having these illegal entries were released by you with a malafide intention. V. Besides above you acted dishonestly with the customers also. This was reported by one of the customer Sri Kamta Pd. Nayak, S.B. A/c No. 3381 vide his complaint dated 14.08.2004. VI. You also threatened Sri Shyam Kishore Sinha, Branch Manager with dire consequences unless he destroys/tempers the seized documents. VII. It is apparent from the records on several occasions you misused the fund of the Bank and tried to deposit the amount given by the customers by not entering in to the respective ledgers itself. This shows your ill motive.” 4. The chargesheet was issued vide order dated 08.09.2004 (Annexure-2A). It has been stated in the writ application that the petitioner thereafter demanded certain documents for the purpose of submitting his reply to the chargesheet which was not supplied to him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report which was communicated to the petitioner on 08.11.2007 asking him to show cause on the report of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 10.03.2008 came to be passed dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also stood dismissed by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 08.01.2010. 5. Before I deal with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, I feel it apt to mention at the outset that the petitioner did not bring on record his reply show cause to the chargesheet which he had submitted on 09.10.2004, which was crucial and most important for the purpose of adjudication of the present case. Original records of the Disciplinary Proceeding were called for by this Court, and have been produced by learned counsel appearing for the Bank. The said reply is available with the records of Disciplinary Proceeding and were brought on record for the first time by way of an annexure. (Annexure-R in series) to the 2nd counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the Bank on 13.01.2014. The said reply is available with the records of Disciplinary Proceeding and were brought on record for the first time by way of an annexure. (Annexure-R in series) to the 2nd counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the Bank on 13.01.2014. I consider it appropriate to quote verbatim, relevant portion of his reply show cause:- “That a large number of cheques which were deposited by P & T Cooperative Society for credit to their C/A A/c & were change & credited to S/B A/c no. 3046 such credits were effected not by me but all the officials of the Branch along with Officials of the society we are having full knowledge of the same. The amount so credited were drower by me proportionate share was given to all. This can be well substiated that such a huge amount being credited with drawn for years to gather & no body was complaining & checking the same. In the last which there was some difference in share the matter was reported to H.O., as such I am not only liable for the above amount rather all the officials particularly those who have realized posted and passed the vouchers.” 6. From the above, it would appear that the petitioner admitted that a large number of cheques which were deposited by the P & T Co-operative Societies for credit to their current account / account were credited to savings bank account No. 3046 of the petitioner and according to the petitioner, such credits were not effected by him only but by all officials of the branch in connivance with the officials of the Society and all of them were having full knowledge. I also think it proper to mention here itself that a criminal case being Kotwali (Patna) P.S. No. 457 /2004 was also instituted, naming the petitioner as chief accused. 7. I also think it proper to mention here itself that a criminal case being Kotwali (Patna) P.S. No. 457 /2004 was also instituted, naming the petitioner as chief accused. 7. The reply show cause submitted by the petitioner dated 09.10.2004 was a crucial document for adjudication of the present case in which the petitioner had confessed the main charge levelled against him in the chargesheet that a large number of cheques which were deposited by P&T co-operative Societies in their credit account for collection / clearance had not been credited in their current account and after collection, the credit vouchers were changed by the petitioner and fraudulently credited in his own SB Account No. 3046, instead of current account of P & T Society. The conduct of the petitioner in not bringing on record this vital document dated 09.10.2004, which is reply to the chargesheet, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, is deliberate and intentional. Absence of pleadings in the writ petition in this regard amounts to deliberate concealment of material fact by a person seeking relief under writ jurisdiction of the Court, which is an equitable remedy. In my opinion, such conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from any relief, in discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am of the view that the petitioner’s case is fit to be rejected on this ground alone. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders mainly on the following grounds:- i. The orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are non-speaking, do not assign any reason; and do not reflect any consideration of the material on record and the defence taken by the petitioner. ii. The petitioner has been discriminated against in the matter of imposition of punishment inasmuch as two other persons, namely, Ram Janam Singh and Ram Prahalad Singh were also proceeded against alongwith the petitioner but punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed only upon the petitioner while other two persons have either been let off with minor punishment or no punishment delivered. iii. It has also been contended that a surcharge case was instituted against the petitioner for recovery of the amount alleged to have been defalcated by the him but the said surcharge case has been dismissed by an order dated 08.01.2010. 9. iii. It has also been contended that a surcharge case was instituted against the petitioner for recovery of the amount alleged to have been defalcated by the him but the said surcharge case has been dismissed by an order dated 08.01.2010. 9. This is also to be noted that the chargesheets issued against other two employees, namely, Ram Janam Singh and Ram Prahalad Singh were also not brought on record along with the writ application, though plea of discrimination had been taken on the ground that in similar circumstance while punishment of dismissal had been imposed upon the Petitioner, other persons had been let off either without punishment or with minor punishment.” 10. It was in the background of this stand taken on behalf of the petitioner that vide order dated 06.12.2013, the Court had directed the Respondents to bring on record the orders finally passed in case of Ram Janam Singh and Ram Prahalad Singh. Since it was insisted upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that similarly situated Ram Janam Singh and Ram Prahalad Singh had been given better treatment than this petitioner, this Court vide order dated 17.02.2014 directed the petitioner to bring on record the charges framed against the said Ram Janam Singh and Ram Prahalad Singh. 11. No affidavit could be filed by the petitioner bringing on record the said two chargesheets though learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents informed this Court that a copy of second supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner was served upon them, which contained the copies of chargesheets as against said Ram Janam Singh and Ram Prahalad Singh. A copy of the said affidavit said to have been served by the petitioner upon the Respondents has been placed before me, let the same be kept on record. From the said copy, it would appear that following were the charges framed against Ram Janam Singh and Ram Prahalad Singh:- Ram Janam Singh “As per report of the enquiry team a large number of cheques were fraudulently credited in the S.B. account No. 3046 & 3075 of Sri Lallanjee Prasad and Sri Nafis Akhtar respectively instead of crediting the account of P &T Coop. society. During your posting in the branch it has been found by the enquiry team that most of the vouchers of the both accounts have been posted by you. society. During your posting in the branch it has been found by the enquiry team that most of the vouchers of the both accounts have been posted by you. Being an assistant you should have been cautious while posting of vouchers etc. As such, it seems that this fraudulent act has been done by Sri Prasad with your connivance.” Ram Prahalad Singh “As per report of the enquiry team a large number of cheques were fraudulently credited in the S.B. account No. 3046 & 3075 of Sri Lallanjee Prasad and Sri Nafis Akhtar respectively instead of crediting the account of P & T Coop. society with the bank. During your posting in the branch it has been found by the enquiry team that some of the vouchers have been passed by you by crediting the S.B. account of Sri Lallanjee Prasad. Being a passing officer you should have been cautious while passing of vouchers etc. As such, it seems that this fraudulent act has been done by Sri Prasad with your connivance.” 12. These chargesheets are there with original records of the disciplinary proceeding with respect to Ram Prahalad Singh at page 170 and Ram Janam Singh at page 136. I am constrained to record that even these documents were not brought on record deliberately and were in fact withheld. The charges levelled against the Petitioner and those levelled against Ram Prahalad Singh and Ram Janam Singh cannot be said to be at par; charges against the petitioner were much grave which can be assessed easily by comparing the charges. I am accordingly of the opinion that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and is guilty of concealing material facts from this Court to obtain an order in his favour. 13. I have perused the impugned orders to consider the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the orders are cryptic and non-speaking. Though I am satisfied that the order of the disciplinary authority is non-speaking but I refuse to interfere with the impugned order keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner as noted above. 13. I have perused the impugned orders to consider the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the orders are cryptic and non-speaking. Though I am satisfied that the order of the disciplinary authority is non-speaking but I refuse to interfere with the impugned order keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner as noted above. The plea that surcharge case instituted against the petitioner for recovery of the amount came to be dismissed and, therefore, this Court is required to interfere with the impugned orders is not acceptable for the reason that while dismissing the surcharge case the concerned authority, misdirected itself, by wrongly considering the case of the petitioner on the ground of discrimination. It would be evident from the chargesheets framed against said Ram Janam Singh and Ram Prahalad Singh and that of this petitioner that the charges against the petitioner were much more serious and grave. While refusing to interfere with the impugned order I have kept in mind the petitioner’s admission of guilt in his reply show cause wherein he has shamelessly alleged that other Bank personnel also shared the amount. 14. For the reasons noted above I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. 15. The Court, while hearing of this case became inquisitive about the status of the criminal case being Kotwali P.S. Case (Patna) No. 457/04 instituted against the petitioner wayback in the year 2004 and on a request made by this Court Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior counsel who normally appears on behalf of the Vigilance Department of the Government of Bihar, has been kind enough to assist this Court and inform that the case is still pending for investigation in Economic Offences Unit II. This Court fails to understand how it has taken more than ten years for the investigating agency to conclude the investigation, which is based mainly on documents. While dismissing the writ application, I observe that the concerned investigating agency must make all possible efforts to bring the investigation to a logical end as early as possible. 16. Let this order be communicated to learned Advocate General, Bihar, for its communication to the Director General of Police, Bihar, for necessary action. Place this matter under heading “To Be Mentioned” on 05.05.2014 to enable the D.G.P., Bihar to report latest status of criminal case. 17. 16. Let this order be communicated to learned Advocate General, Bihar, for its communication to the Director General of Police, Bihar, for necessary action. Place this matter under heading “To Be Mentioned” on 05.05.2014 to enable the D.G.P., Bihar to report latest status of criminal case. 17. Let original records of the Disciplinary Proceedings be returned to Mr. S.N. Pathak, learned counsel for the Bank.