M.R.Calla, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 23rd December, 1985 and the order dated 28th January, 1986 seeking a further direction for reinstatement of the petitioner in the service of the Bank with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The petitioner's case is that he was appointed with the United Commercial Bank in the year 1961 as Clerk-cum-typist and, he was promoted as Officer in the year 1976 on the basis of the recommendation of the selection committee. When pillai Committee's recommendations were implemented, the petitioner was fitted in the Junior Management Grade Scale I, in the year 1976. When the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager of Dausa Branch of the Bank, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 19th September, 1983, passed by the Deputy General Manager (Personal Administration). The petitioner ' as placed under suspension because a case was registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding offices under Sections 428, IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The aforesaid case registered against the petitioner was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Jaipur and ultimately a final report was filed on 25th May, 1984, by the CBI. This final report given by the CBI in the Court of Special Judge dealing with the CBI cases, was accepted by the court on 27th July, 1984. A certified copy of this FR along with the order of acceptance thereof has been placed on record as annx. 1. After the submission of the final report on 25th May, 1984 and before its acceptance on 27th July, 1984, the petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 11th June, 1984, along with a charge-sheet under Regulation 6 of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, which is on record as Annexure/2.Reply Annx.3 was filed by the petitioner giving a- detailed explanation therein.The petitioner has alleged that one Shri K.L. Sharma was appointed as Enquiry Officer and he held the charges proved and on the basis of this enquiry, an order was passed on 27th July, 1985, whereby a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for each of the charges was imposed against the petitioner, which is Annx. 4 on the record. There were five charges against the petitioner. In accordance with the punishment order dated 27th July, 1985, five annual increments of the petitioner could be with held with cumulative effect, but it was further ordered that the punishment of stoppage of increments will be concurrent. Therefore, in all, one grade increment, in effect, is to be stopped with cumulative effect. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with the punishment order. Al,though, the final order in the enquiry had been passed on 27th July, 1985, the petitioner's suspension was not revoked. The petitioner was continued under suspension. After a lapse of five months, a letter dated 3rd January, 1986, was sent to the petitioner under the signatures of the Divisional Manager and a notice was, thus, given to the petitioner proposing penalty, along with a notice dated 23rd December, 1985, issued by the General Manager (Personnel Inspection and Vigilance) Reviewing Authority, enhancing the punishment of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. The notice dated 23rd December, 1985, is on record as an enclosure to the letter dated 3rd January, 1986, Annexure/5.The petitioner sent a reply to this notice enhancing punishment under his cover dated 8th January, 1966, and, through this reply the petitioner contested the notice of enhancement of punishment. Personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner and there after the order dated 28th January, 1986 was served upon him, here by the punishment of removal from service was imposed against the petitioner. It is against the order dated 28th January, 1986, read with notice dated 23rd December, 1985, that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(3.) A reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. In the reply, the stand taken by the respondents is that this Court is not a Court of Appeal and there is no error in the impugned order. The order had been passed in accordance with United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Shri Garg has submitted that under these Regulations, there is a provision for review under Regulation 18 and the impugned order has been passed after following the procedure as has been laid down in Regulation 18. Regulation 18 with regard to the review is reproduced as under: "18. Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Reviewing Authority may call for the record of the case within six months of the date of the final order and after reviewing the case pass such orders thereon as it may deam fit: Provided that - (i) if any enhanced penalty, which the Reviewing Authority proposes to impose, is a major penalty specified in clauses (a),(0, (g) or (h) of regulation 4 and an enquiry as provided under regulation 6 has not already been held in the case, the Reviewing Authority shall direct that such an enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of regulation 6 and thereafter consider the record of the enquiry and pass such orders as it may deem proper; (ii) if the Reviewing Authority decides to enhance the punishment but an enquiry has already been held in accordance with the provisions of regulation 6, the Reviewing Authority shall give show cause notice to the officer employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him and shall pass an order after taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by the officer employee.";