JUDGMENT
M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. C. Tripathi for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is challenging the Impugned order dated 31.8.1994, Annexure-9 to the writ petition and the appellate order dated 26.8.1995. Annexure-22 to the writ petition. The petitioner was an officer in the Central Bank and he was charge-sheeted and after an enquiry in which he was given opportunity of hearing, he was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal which has been rejected by the order dated 26.8.1995. Hence this petition.
3. In the appellate order, there is a finding of fact that the petitioner wanted to help a party by mala fide manner. He removed the manifold No. 89448 of Rs. 2.51,857 and did not debit the same to the party’s account. This was only unearthed from I.B.R. reconciliation. These are findings of fact and we cannot Interfere with them in writ jurisdiction. A Bank operates on the public confidence and the employees of the Bank have to maintain the highest standards of discipline and Integrity.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed by an authority who had no jurisdiction to do so. There is no such averment in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed in the year 1999 and the third supplementary-affidavit containing this averment has been sworn only on 8.1.2002. No amendment application has been filed with it. Hence there is no prayer for amending the writ petition or taking this ground, We therefore, do not permit the petitioner to take such a ground since there is no such ground in the writ petition nor any amendment application has been filed making such prayer. Even before the appellate court, this ground was not taken. Moreover, this has been specifically denied in paragraph 22 of the counter-affidavit. We are not inclined to permit taking such ground at such a late stage by filing a third supplementary- affidavit.
5. There is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.