JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is against the order dtd.9.11.2004 (Annexure-10) whereby and where under the disciplinary authority has passed order of dismissal from service with effect from the date of order and the period of suspension till his dismissal from service be treated as such. 2. The ground taken by the petitioner in assailing the order of dismissal is that he has not been provided with adequate and sufficient opportunity to defend himself, not been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and the foremost ground taken is that the enquiry has been conducted by the Branch Manager while the General Manager has duly been appointed as Enquiry Officer, as such there is no application of mind by the enquiry officer, as such the entire proceeding is vitiated in the eye of law, in consequence thereof, the order of suspension is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fortified his argument by referring to a document, i.e. letter dtd.16.8.1994, to demonstrate that the General Manager has been appointed as enquiry officer but the enquiry has been conducted by the Branch Manager. 3. While on the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party-Bank has vehemently opposed the stand and submission of the petitioner by submitting that there is no illegality in the process of the departmental proceeding. The General Manager has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer who has conducted enquiry of the allegation leveled against the petitioner of commission of financial irregularities as also disobedience of the order passed by the competent authority, negligence in duty, etc., the disciplinary authority, in pursuance of the finding of the enquiry officer and considering the nature of allegation, has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service after following due process, hence there is no illegality in the order. He submits that the letter written by the concerned Branch Manager dtd.16.8.1994 addressed to the petitioner is actually has been issued on misconception which has been clarified vide a separate letter issued on 24.01.2004. He submits that even from perusal of the original record pertaining to the departmental proceeding, it is evident that the petitioner had appeared before the General Manager and put his signature in the proceeding. He submits that even from perusal of the original record pertaining to the departmental proceeding, it is evident that the petitioner had appeared before the General Manager and put his signature in the proceeding. He further submits that the ground taken by the petitioner that he has not been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and the relevant documents have not been provided, this ground has never been taken before the enquiry officer or before the disciplinary authority. He submits that even assuming that the petitioner has not been allowed to defend himself properly, in that case he ought to have made proper requisition before the authority to show his bonafide but he has never taken this point before the enquiry officer or before the disciplinary authority, as such the same is not to be accepted by this court. The other ground has been taken that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Staff Service Rules, 1989. 4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The factual aspect which is not in dispute in this case is that the petitioner while working as Accounts Assistant was subjected to a departmental proceeding for financial irregularities which has been pointed out by the internal auditor in his report which relates to misappropriation of an amount of Rs.3,73,156.30/-, out of which, the petitioner while admitting his guilt, has deposited Rs.93,300/- in piecemeal towards shortage and Rs.13,215.50/- towards other customers’ accounts. The other allegation is of not obeying the order of transfer transferring him to Rourkela Branch even in spite of the fact that he was relieved from Sambalpur Branch w.e.f.24.8.1993 but he did not turn up to join in the Rourkela Branch with the plea of ill health. The additional departmental proceeding has also been initiated which relates to misappropriation of government money for the period from 22.2.1990 to 24.8.1993 to the tune of Rs.3,73,156.30/-. The competent disciplinary authority has appointed the General Manager as the enquiry officer vide order dtd.26.2.1994. The additional departmental proceeding has also been initiated which relates to misappropriation of government money for the period from 22.2.1990 to 24.8.1993 to the tune of Rs.3,73,156.30/-. The competent disciplinary authority has appointed the General Manager as the enquiry officer vide order dtd.26.2.1994. It transpires from the enquiry report annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition that the petitioner has appeared before the enquiry officer, i.e. the General Manager and the enquiry officer has found the charges proved and thereafter forwarded the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority, i.e. the Managing Director who has issued 2nd show cause notice with the proposed punishment who has responded to it and after taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter and in exercise of power conferred under Rule 36(a) of the Staff Service Rules, 1989, has inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from the date of order and the period of suspension has been directed to be treated as such till the date of dismissal, the said order is under challenge. The ground taken by the petitioner is that the enquiry has not been conducted by the General Manager rather it has been conducted by the Branch Manager and in support of his sub-mission, he has relied upon a communication dtd.16.8.1994. This court, in order to examine this aspect of the matter, has directed the learned counsel appearing for the Bank to produce the relevant record, on going through the relevant record it is evident that the enquiry officer has recorded the statement of the petitioner which has duly been signed by him on 18.8.1994 along with the Marshaling officer who has also put his signature on the same date. This document goes to suggest that before the General Manager who was the enquiry officer, the petitioner had appeared and the General Manager recorded his statement. This document goes to suggest that before the General Manager who was the enquiry officer, the petitioner had appeared and the General Manager recorded his statement. It further transpires from the record that the petitioner has never made any requisition to call upon any record or to allow him to cross-examine the witnesses and it is settled that for any document which the delinquent employee thinks it proper for his defence or to cross-examine the witnesses in his defence, a requisition is to be made before the enquiry officer or before the disciplinary authority to supply the relevant document or to allow him to cross-examine a particular witness in his defence, but no document to that effect has been produced by the petitioner and nothing has been pleaded in this regard in the writ petition or in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. The petitioner however put reliance upon the communication dtd.16.8.1994 issued by the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank addressed to him and the content of the said letter is that the Branch Manager has asked him to appear before the undersigned and on that pretext submission has been made that the Branch Manager has conducted the enquiry, but after going through the original record this argument is not acceptable to this court in view of the fact that the petitioner had appeared before the General Manager before whom he has given his statement and further on the ground that the enquiry report which the petitioner himself has annexed is also suggestive of the fact that the General Manager has considered entire aspect of the matter relating to different charges both in the first proceeding as well as in the additional proceeding and thereafter found the charges proved and by accepting the finding of the enquiry officer the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the question of non-application of mind by the enquiry officer since according to him he has accepted whatever has been stated by the Branch Manager and save and except this point the petitioner has not argued anything on the merit of the allegation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the question of non-application of mind by the enquiry officer since according to him he has accepted whatever has been stated by the Branch Manager and save and except this point the petitioner has not argued anything on the merit of the allegation. This court, after taking into consideration the discussion made herein above is of the considered view that the letter dtd.16.8.1994 cannot be relied upon considering the fact that the petitioner had appeared before the General Manager who has recorded his statement and also a clarification letter was issued on 24.1.2004 in which it has been contended that the Branch Manager while issuing letter dtd.16.8.1994 has inadvertently requested the petitioner to appear before the undersigned in place of General Manager, but the original record itself suggests that the statement has been recorded by the General Manager and when it has been compared with the enquiry report as has been annexed as annexure-7 to the writ petition, it is evident that on the basis of the statement having been recorded by the enquiry officer, i.e. General Manager of the Bank, the finding has been given by him, hence the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry was conducted by the Branch Manager is far from truth. 5. The other ground which has been raised by the learned counsel for opposite party – Bank is that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has directed approached this court without availing the opportunity of appeal. This court gone through the Staff Service Rules, 1989 wherein there is provision of appeal, but the petitioner, without availing the same, has directly approached this court. 6. This court, after taking into consideration the discussion having been made herein above with respect to the submission of the parties as also the forum of availability of alternative remedy which the petitioner has not availed, is of the considered view that the order of dismissal needs no interference, hence the writ petition stands dismissed.