Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 7th November, 2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.540 of 1996 filed by the appellant herein to quash and set aside the order dated 10-5-1995 and for a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent-Bank to reinstate the respondent with back wages and with arrears of service and all other service benefits which are consequential to reinstatement in service and for other incidental and ancillary relief. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein for the reasons recorded therein. The appellant in this appeal questioned the order of removal from service by the Appellate Authority.
(2.) The appellant joined the services of the Bank as a clerk in 1963. He was chargesheeted for such irregularities committed by him while working as Branch Manager of Konkan Bhavan Branch of the Bank from 1982-1984. There were total seven charges imputed against him. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority conducted an enquiry and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. In his report, the Enquiry Officer dropped one charge out of seven charges and out of remaining six charges five charges had not been proved. The Enquiry Officer held that only charge No.5 pertaining to grant of advance by the appellant to his wife was proved. This Enquiry Report did not contain any recommendation regarding punishment. According to the appellant, this report was not communicated to him for more than two years. On 24-4-1991, the Disciplinary Authority sent the report of the Enquiry Officer to the appellant and he was asked to make his representation on the report. The Disciplinary Authority recommended to the Punishing/Appointing Authority of the appellant the punishment of reduction in substantive salary at one stage from Rs.4020 to Rs.3900 in the terms of Rule 49(e) of the Rules. The Punishing Authority who was the appointing Authority of the appellant relied on the recommendations of the disciplinary authority and imposed the punishment accordingly.
(3.) The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of punishment dated 21-10-1991 before the Appellate Authority and pleaded that the punishment imposed upon him was too severe and in fact of the case that only one charge out of seven was proved. The appellate Authority, however, proposed to enhance the penalty imposed upon the appellant to an order of dismissal. He ordered the punishing authority/appointing authority to issue a notice to the appellant under Rule 69(2) of the State Bank of India Officers Services Rules, 1992 (hereinafter called the "Rules") to show cause why the penalty should not be enhanced as proposed. By this time new Rules of 1992 had come into force to regulate the service conditions of the Bank Officers. The appointing authority communicated the above order to the appellant asking him to submit his contentions. The appellant submitted his detailed reply against the proposed order of dismissal. On 10-5-1995 the appellate Authority decided to enhance the penalty inflicted from reduction in basic pay by one stage to removal from service instead of dismissal as earlier proposed on 24-5-1995. The disciplinary authority communicated the above order to the appellant. The appellant through his advocate made an attempt for justice to the Chairman requesting for review in his case. It was replied that Rule 69(3) of the Rules does not provide it mandatory for the Reviewing Authority to make review of each and every order passed by the competent authority. Being aggrieved by the imposition of penalty the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court vide its order dated 7-11-2001 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant accepting that the appellate Authority had rightly exercised its power in enhancing the punishment. Thus the Special leave petition. Leave was granted by this Court on 28-10-2002.;