JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 8th March, 2019 passed in W.P. No.300 of 2017 the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 2. The fact of the case in a nutshell is as follows :- The petitioner was appointed as a sweeper under the respondent bank on part time basis on 9th September, 1992. After continuous working for seven years she was confirmed as a permanent staff and subsequently she was promoted to the post of peon. Meanwhile the appellant was posted at Port Blair branch of the said respondent/bank. On 16th October, 2015 after the appellant returned home from her duty some of the officials of the bank came to her house to conduct a search and seizure proceedings and collected a bag containing rupees one lakh in cash. Accordingly on 17th October, 2015 the appellant/petitioner was placed under suspension. After gathering such information a complaint was lodged against her by one Ravi Raju the cashier of the bank interaila stating that the appellant has stolen one packet of rupees one thousand denomination currency note containing 1000 pieces of one hundred rupee notes which accumulated to a total sum of rupees one lakh. The said Ravi Raju with the help of CCTV footage found some abnormal behaviour of the appellant/petitioner. Accordingly a cloud of doubt occurred to his mind that the appellant stole the said amount. As a result thereby with the prior permission of Assistant General Manager the said Ravi Raju along with other officers including Branch Manager visited the house of the appellant and on spot recovered the entire amount. Vide letter dated 16th October, 2015 the appellant informed Assistant Manager of the bank thus mentioning interalia that due to some bonafide mistake she took rupees one lakh from Ravi Raju though she admitted that she committed that offence in an unconscious state of mind. On 19th March, 2016 the appellant was instructed to explain within three days with sufficient reason why she has stolen the aforesaid amount. Accordingly on 31st May, a chargesheet was issued against the appellant/petitioner under Clause 5 (j) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10th April, 2002 on disciplinary action and procedure for workmen staff. On 12th July, 2016 the petitioner was also advised to submit her reply within seven days. Accordingly on 31st May, a chargesheet was issued against the appellant/petitioner under Clause 5 (j) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10th April, 2002 on disciplinary action and procedure for workmen staff. On 12th July, 2016 the petitioner was also advised to submit her reply within seven days. Vide memo dated 18th July, 2016 the appellant was informed that departmental enquiry will be held and the name and designation of the enquiry officer was also mentioned in the said letter. The appellant was further informed that if she wanted to engage defense counsel particulars of the same should be forwarded to the Enquiry Officer in advance. She was also informed that she may contest her case either personally or through a representative of the bank or any other registered union of bank employees. Through a letter dated 5th August, 2016 posted on 9th August, 2016 the appellant informed the respondent/bank regarding the details of her defense counsel namely Sri A.K. Paul, Senior Prosecutor (Retired). The appellant was replied by the banks letter dated 19th August, 2016 thereby intimated that in a departmental enquiry a charged employee is not allowed to engage a testimony as Defense counsel. Vide a letter dated 23rd August, 2016 the appellant was informed that preliminary hearing of the enquiry will be held on 29th August, 2016 and she was requested to attend the hearing with her defense counsel. It was also informed that in case of absence of the appellant the proceeding would be held ex parte. The appellant vide a letter dated 25th August, 2016 informed the Enquiry Officer that she is a Group-D employee with education upto Class-VIII in Tamil medium having no knowledge of English. On the date of preliminary enquiry the appellant attended the said enquiry and submitted that she will appoint one Sri Sudip Dutta Senior Assistant Manager posted at SBI Kolkata main branch to act as her defense counsel and who will be available in Port Blair on 31st August, 2016. Upon her request the Enquiry Officer fixed the preliminary hearing on 31st August, 2016. It was also mentioned that in case the proposed defense counsel failed to attend the enquiry proceedings the appellant will have to defend herself. Upon her request the Enquiry Officer fixed the preliminary hearing on 31st August, 2016. It was also mentioned that in case the proposed defense counsel failed to attend the enquiry proceedings the appellant will have to defend herself. On 31st August, 2016 the appellant attended the hearing and informed the Enquiry Officer that her Defense Counsel will not be able to come to Port Blair to act as her defense counsel. Therefore she intended to appoint one Sri Goutam Banerjee of Kolkata as her Defense Counsel. But said Goutam Banerjee was also not well to attend the preliminary hearing fixed on 31st August, 2016. Accordingly she prayed for some accommodation but the Enquiry Officer rejected her prayer and concluded the preliminary enquiry on 31st August, 2016. On the selfsame date the Enquiry Officer handed over the list of prosecuting documents and witnesses along with the certified copies of the prosecution documents. The appellant acknowledged the same. Upon enquiry from the Enquiry Officer the appellant submitted the list of defense witnesses and defense documents. The petitioner was subsequently intimated by the Enquiry Officer that the next date of hearing was fixed on 5th September, 2016. On 6th September, 2016 the petitioner attended the same but without any defense counsel though the petitioner remained present at the time of final hearing but she refused to sign the minutes of the meeting and refused to cooperate with the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the enquiry officer had no other alternative but to hold and conclude the enquiry proceedings. Unfortunately vide a letter dated 19th September, 2016 the petitioner acknowledged to receipt of the proceedings of the regular enquiry and contended that on 5th September, 2016 though she submitted her hazira but the enquiry officer refused to accept the same. She also admitted that she refused to sign the documents on 5th September, 2016, as the same were written in English which she did not understand. Accordingly she prayed for recalling of the proceedings held on 29th August, 2016, 31st August, 2016 and 5th September, 2016 but the enquiry officer vide a letter dated 1st October, 2016 refused to recall the proceedings of a preliminary enquiry and the regular enquiry. The Presenting Officer filed the prosecution case thereby holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved conclusively. The Presenting Officer filed the prosecution case thereby holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved conclusively. Therefore, the petitioner was requested vide letter dated 7th March, 2016 to submit her defense by 17th October, 2016 and the petitioner duly submitted the same on 13th October, 2016. The report of the enquiry officer was forwarded to the petitioner by the Regional Manager of the bank on 9th December, 2016 and petitioner was afforded an opportunity to give her reply to the proven charges within three days. Accordingly petitioner filed her reply on 2nd January, 2017. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Regional Manager and appointing authority on 7th January, 2017 informing her that the disciplinary authority cum appointing authority proposed to impose the penalty of “Removal from Service”. Therefore, the petitioner was requested to appear for personal hearing on 16th January, 2017 to submit a written statement in her defense. The petitioner submitted her written statement on 13th January, 2017 and presented the same on 16th January, 2017. On 19th January, 2017 the penalty order was issued thereby removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal which was also dismissed by an order dated 17th April, 2017. The petitioner challenged the order of punishment on the ground that the proceeding was not conducted in a free and fair manner, the same was conducted with a closed mind without giving an opportunity of proper defense to the petitioner. Therefore principle of natural justice has been violated. The entire proceeding was full of procedural lapses. The said writ petitioner was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Submissions of the Learned Advocates 3. Mr. Binnu Kumar learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/petitioner strongly submitted that without giving any opportunity of hearing the disciplinary proceeding was concluded in a hasty manner. It is also argued by Mr. Kumar that there were lots of procedural irregularities in the so called disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Kumar further contended that as per the banking regulation the alleged offence of the petitioner cannot be treated as gross mistake, therefore, imposition of capital punishment like “Removal from Service” is highly improper, irregular, illegal and also very much contrary to the law. It is further contended by Mr. Mr. Kumar further contended that as per the banking regulation the alleged offence of the petitioner cannot be treated as gross mistake, therefore, imposition of capital punishment like “Removal from Service” is highly improper, irregular, illegal and also very much contrary to the law. It is further contended by Mr. Kumar that as per Clause-1 of the memorandum of settlement the petitioner shall be informed in the first instance regarding particulars of the charge-sheet and she should have been given an opportunity to explain the same. It is also vehemently submitted by Mr. Kumar that documents relied on by the respondent were never supplied to the petitioner during the proceeding. The entire proceeding should be quashed along with the order of punishment. Mr. Kumar further submitted that the alleged mistake on the part of the petitioner at best may fall under Clause-7 (g) not under the Clause as referred in the impugned charge-sheet. Mr. Kumar also urged that the cause of action if any arose on 16th October, 2015 but the respondent bank decided to initiate the disciplinary proceeding after lapse of considerable period i.e. on March, 2016. Thus violating the provision of Clause-11 of the memorandum of settlement. On the issue of violation of natural justice reliance was placed by Mr. Kumar on one Hon’ble Apex Court decision reported in AIR 1970 SC 150 (A.K. Kraipak and Others vs Union of India and Others) . Accordingly before parting with his argument Mr. Kumar strongly submitted that Court should set aside the impugned order thereby quashing the proceeding and the punishment illegally imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Per contra Ms. Anjali Nag learned Advocate appearing for the respondent bank submitted that at the first stage of proceeding the appellant/petitioner admitted that she had taken the said amount in spite of that only after preliminary enquiry she was placed under suspension. Ms. Nag drew Court’s attention to the letter written by the appellant/petitioner dated 16th October, 2015 (appears at Page-186 of the Paper Book) where she confessed that “I have done this mistake in an unconscious state of mind and kept the same in my bag”. Ms. Nag drew Court’s attention to the letter written by the appellant/petitioner dated 16th October, 2015 (appears at Page-186 of the Paper Book) where she confessed that “I have done this mistake in an unconscious state of mind and kept the same in my bag”. She also drew Court’s attention at the letter dated 17th October, 2015 written by the respondent bank thereby informing that the bank has decided to place the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect in connection with complaint receipt from the Port Blair Branch on stealing of cash of rupees one lakh from the cash department as received from Sri Ravi Raju, she also referred the letter dated 4th November, 2015 whereby the FIR was lodged by the bank against the petitioner. The said letter was received by the appellant/petitioner with the endorsement that she was compelled to sign on some blank papers. Ms Nag also referred to the letter dated 1st May, 2016 written by the appellant/petitioner to the investigating officer State Bank of India Port Blair thereby stating inter alia that on 16th October, 2016 she took one lakh rupees from table of Ravi Raju. When a bank staff came to office she got afraid and gave the said bag to her daughter to throw the said bag outside the room but the said bank officer caught hold of the same. She also expressed that she is extremely apologetic for that and she will not repeat the same in future. The appellant/petitioner also wrote a letter on 16th October, 2016 to the Investigating Officer State Bank of India Port Blair thereby expressing her embarrassment thus praying pardon from the Investigating Officer. It was also strongly argued by Ms. Nag that surprisingly in the reply to the charge-sheet the appellant/petitioner suppressed those letters. Ms. Nag also referred to Sub Para(g) and (h) of Para-5 of the affidavit-in-opposition those are referred below :- “(g)-That the Disciplinary Authority has issued charge-sheet against Smt. Sonamuthu Vellammal vide letter dated 31.05.2016 which was received the petitioner on the same date. Nag that surprisingly in the reply to the charge-sheet the appellant/petitioner suppressed those letters. Ms. Nag also referred to Sub Para(g) and (h) of Para-5 of the affidavit-in-opposition those are referred below :- “(g)-That the Disciplinary Authority has issued charge-sheet against Smt. Sonamuthu Vellammal vide letter dated 31.05.2016 which was received the petitioner on the same date. (h)-That again on 13.06.2016 the petitioner Smt. Sonamuthu Vellammal vide her letter dated 13.06.2016 addressed to the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Port Blair had confessed by saying that : “On 16.10.2015 during the case of transfer cash of from the SWO to cash bold I took away one packed of one thousand note (Rupees one lakh) and kept it my personal bag and went home. I admit that I have knowingly took bank’s money…” Ms. Nag also referred Para-7 and 8 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the appellant/petitioner which are quoted below :- “(7)-That the averment made in paragraph no.5 (c) 5(d) and 5 (g) of the said opposition is admitted to the extent borne by records and the rest are denied and disputed. (8) That the averment made in paragraph no.5 (e), 5(f) and 5 (h) of the said opposition is denied and disputed and it is to submit that the respondent authorities taking the advantage of being higher officials of the respondent Bank by misusing their power knowing fully well that the petitioner is not acquainted with Hindi and English scripts obtained the signature of the petitioner repeatedly in two and three letters showing that the petitioner had admitted her guilt, whereas the fact remains that the petitioner has not stolen any amount from the bank and therefore in order to have fair adjudication, the petitioner time and again represented before the respondent authorities to allow her to engage one AK Paul to defend her case, which was denied by the respondent authorities.” Ms. Nag also referred letter dated 13th June, 2016 written by the appellant/petitioner to the Regional Manager State Bank of India Port Blair and the same is quoted below :- “The Regional Manager State Bank of India, Port Blair. “On 16.10.2015 during the case of transfer cash of from the SWO to cash bold I took away one packed of one thousand note (Rupees one lakh) and kept it my personal bag and went home. “On 16.10.2015 during the case of transfer cash of from the SWO to cash bold I took away one packed of one thousand note (Rupees one lakh) and kept it my personal bag and went home. I admit that I have knowingly took bank’s money…” I regret this error and request you to forgiving me for this misconduct. I promise not to repeat again I also request you to pardon me as I have to support my family with my salary. Yours faithfully S. Vellammal 13.06.2016” Letter dated 12th July, 2016 also referred by Ms. Nag whereby the appellant/petitioner was served that letter thereby directing her to appear before the enquiry proceedings on the schedule date. She also referred several correspondences taken place between the bank and the appellant/petitioner. It is also vehemently argued by Ms. Nag that after ten days of the complaint of the proceeding the appellant/petitioner on 19th September, 2016 wrote a letter to Sri A.K. Chatterjee AGM of the said bank of which the bank gave written reply to the same on 1st October, 2016. Therefore, Ms. Nag further contended that after giving adequate as well as sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant/petitioner the punishment of removal from service was imposed upon the appellant/petitioner under Clause 6 (b) of the Memorandum of Settlement without putting any stigma to the future carrier of the appellant/petitioner. Accordingly, Ms. Nag vehemently argued that submission as canvassed by Mr. Binnu Kumar that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant/petitioner cannot/should not be sustained in the eye of law as well as the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Reliance was placed by Ms. Nag on several Hon’ble Apex Court decisions reported in 2006 (11) Scale 88 (UCO Bank, Chandigrh & Ors vs Hardev Singh) 1998 (4) SCC Page-310 Paras-9 and 12 (Union Bank of India vs Vishwa Mohan) and also the Hon’ble Apex Court decision reported in 2015 (3) SCC 101 Paras-14 and 15 (General Manager (Operations) State Bank of India And Another vs R. Periyasamy). Ms. Ms. Nag also referred Sub Clause (j) of Clause 5 and Sub Clause (b) of Clause 6 of the bipartite settlement dated 10th April, 2002 those are quoted below :- “(j) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank of gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss;” (b) – be removed from service with superannuating benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment;” Before parting with her argument Ms. Nag strongly submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment which deserves interference by this Hon’ble Court. Decision with Reasons 4. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates and after meticulously perusing the records we find it is evident from records that appellant/petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing to submit her case before the enquiry officer. It is also not out of place to mention that whenever the appellant/petitioner prayed for some accommodation for appointment of officer to present her case every time that accommodation was granted by the authority. It is admitted on record that appellant/petitioner herself confessed and admitted the offence committed by her in various letter addressed to the enquiry officer. The appellant/petitioner time and again also prayed before the authority to pardon her for inadvertently committing such mistake and that will not be reiterated in the future. We also considered the fact that punishment of removal from service was imposed by strictly following Section 6 (b) of the said bipartite settlement without putting any stigma to the carrier of the appellant/petitioner. Therefore the citation as referred by Mr. Binnu Kumar on the issue of no opportunity was given has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. 5. Considering the above we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned judgement does not deserve any interference by the Appeal Court. 6. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed however without any order as to costs. 7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this decision as prayed for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.