S VISHWANATH Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was a Manager in the Central Bank of india. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a punishment of removal from service was imposed on him by order dated 26-9-1987 passed by the fourth respondent-Chairman and Managing Director, Central bank of India. The said order dated 26-9-1987 was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition no. 235/1993 which was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court as per annexure-'b' judgment dated 11-6-2001. As per Annexure-'b' judgment, the impugned order of the fourth respondent was set aside and a direction was issued to the respondent-Bank to reinstate the petitioner into service with all monetary and service benefits except for the period from the date of dismissal till he approached the Court. Liberty was reserved to the management of the respondent-Bank to proceed with the enquiry, if they so desired, from the stage the defects were noticed by the court. The respondent Bank filed Writ Appeal No. 4057/2001 against Annexure-'b' judgment dated 11-6-2001. The said Writ appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court as per Annexure 'c' judgment dated 20-7-2004. In Annexure-'c' judgment, the Division Bench found that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the respondent therein (appellant herein) appeared to be harsh. However, the Division Bench observed that it is a matter which the disciplinary authority or the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank as the case may be should consider. According to the Division bench, it was not for the Court to consider the said aspect. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal was allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directing that either the disciplinary authority or the Chairman and managing Director of the Bank shall consider "whether a lesser penalty or punishment is not called for in the facts and circumstances at hand". Pursuant to the direction in Annexure-'c' judgment, the fourth respondent-Chairman and Managing Director, by his order dated 16-9-2004 (Annexure-'d'), awarded to the appellant the penalty of compulsory retirement effective from the date of imposition of the earlier penalty of removal from service. Aggrieved by Annexure-'d' order, the appellant filed Writ petition No. 47717/2004 praying to quash Annexure-'d' order dated 16-9-2004. The grounds raised in the Writ Petition were contained in paragraph 8 of the Writ petition which reads as follows : "8. That the penalty imposed on the petitioner by the impugned order is based on extraneous considerations like delay in preferring the writ petition which had specifically been rejected by this Hon'ble Court, suffers from pre-determination, lacks in bona fides, suffers from non-application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, suffers from non-consideration of the specific observations made by this Hon'ble Court while remanding the matter for reconsideration, penalty is excessive, unconscionable, grossly disproportionate, is in the nature of victimization, unfair, unjust, irrational and unreasonable and contrary to and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. " the learned single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that when the authorities are imposing a lesser punishment which is in substitution of earlier punishment of removal, necessarily, the lesser punishment of compulsory retirement has to date back to the date of original punishment. The learned Single Judge could not find any reason to find fault with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed as per order dated 9-1-2006. Challenging the said order dated 9-1-2006 passed in writ Petition No. 47717/2004, the petitioner in the Writ Petition has filed this Writ Appeal.

(2.) WHEN this Appeal came up for consideration on 28-7-2006, learned counsel for the appellant was directed to serve a copy of the appeal memorandum on the counsel for the bank. Accordingly, copy of the appeal memorandum was served on the counsel for the bank and the Counsel has appeared.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.