M.KATJU, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.5.2001 Annexure -7 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing respondents not to dispense with the service and working of the petitioner and to pay regular monthly salary to him.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Manager, Allahabad Bank, Karwi Branch, Chitrakoot. It is alleged that due to personal bias respondent No. 2 issued charge -sheet against the petitioner on which enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted on 24.12.1997, in which most of the charges were found proved. As a result the respondent No. 2 awarded major punishment of lowering down of the basic pay of the petitioner by nine stage vide order dated 2.3.1998, Annexure -1 to the petition. It is alleged that the aforesaid order awarding punishment was passed under Regulation 4 (e) of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The petitioner's appeal against that order was rejected on 14.12.1998.
(3.) IN para 11 of the petition it is alleged that thereupon a show cause notice dated 5.4.1999 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause why penalty be not enhanced. True copy of the said show cause notice is Annexure -3. The petitioner filed a writ petition against this notice, which was disposed of on 4.5.1999 with a direction that appropriate order be passed by the concerned authority vide Annexure -4. Consequently the respondent No. 1 passed order dated 9.2.2001 and approved the order of respondent No. 2 under Regulation 4(e) of the Regulations. True copy of the order dated 9.2.2001 is Annexure -5. The petitioner alleged that he has already been punished and hence he cannot be given double punishment. After passing the order dated 9.2.2001 the petitioner submitted a representation under Regulation 4 (e) that the punishment awarded to him cannot continue beyond 3 years. True copy of the representation is Annexure -6. In reply to this representation, the respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 31.5.2001 stating that the punishment awarded against the petitioner may be treated as punishment under Regulation 4 (f) instead of Regulation 4 (e). It is alleged in para 18 of the petition that the punishment under Regulation 4 (f) is a major punishment whereas the punishment under Regulation 4 (e) is a minor punishment which was awarded by order dated 2.3.1998 and had become final.;